The sitting begun on Monday 14 December 1998 was resumed at 10.30 am.

Presiding Officer’s Business

Lord Alderdice: Before moving to item 5 on the agenda I wish to draw some matters to the attention of the Assembly.
First, the debate on the motion and the amendments to it will be time-limited to five hours and will be followed by the Adjournment debate.
Secondly, three amendments have been tabled and are published on the Marshalled List. All of these are competent and have different effects. Therefore all three may be moved in the order in which they appear on the list. The motion will be moved and then each amendment in turn, with Mr Neeson’s second amendment moved formally. At the end of the debate the votes on the amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List.
I will remind Members then, as I do now, that if amendment 1 is carried, it then becomes the substantive motion, and amendments 2 and 3 fall. If amendment 1 is not carried, but amendment 2 is carried, it similarly becomes the substantive motion, and amendment 3 falls. If amendments 1 and 2 are not carried, and amendment 3 is carried, it is then added to the motion, and the substantive motion, as amended, is voted upon.
The Standing Orders have given rise to a further technical problem. Once amendments are moved, it is not possible under our Standing Orders for a Member to have right of reply and to speak for a second time. Also it is not technically possible for the mover of an amendment, subsequent to the debate — and perhaps influenced by it — to withdraw his amendment.
There being no opportunity under the Standing Orders for the mover of an amendment to speak for a second time, and since it seems only proper that an amendment should be able to be withdrawn if its mover so chooses, I will give an opportunity to the mover of each of the amendments to indicate whether or not, at that point, his amendment is moved.
I remind Members that, with Royal Assent having been given to the Northern Ireland Act, the Assembly now has absolute privilege, rather than the qualified privilege that obtained before. However, this does not remove the obligation on Members to remain within the bounds of civility and reasonable courtesy and, indeed, to observe the proprieties of parliamentary conduct in parlance. I will try to ensure that these are adhered to in whichever language is used.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrPresiding Officer. If a Member wishes to withdraw his amendment does he simply stand and do so formally, or does he have a right to speak?

Lord Alderdice: I will clarify the position again. Unfortunately, the Initial Standing Orders do not provide for the mover of an amendment to speak again or to wind up, as is the case in other places.
A Member who moves an amendment must have an opportunity to withdraw it. Otherwise it would not be possible to have a probing amendment or to have one’s course of action influenced by debate. I will therefore ask the mover of each amendment, at the appropriate point, if he still wants his amendment to be moved. This will not be giving an opportunity for a further speech; it will simply be giving an opportunity for a mover of an amendment to indicate whether he wants to proceed with his amendment or to withdraw it at that stage.

Mr Derek Hussey: On a further point of order, MrPresiding Officer. I am concerned about remarks made on the radio this morning regarding the designation of Members of the Assembly. The Leader of the Alliance Party asserted that the terms "Nationalist" and "Unionist" were sectarian labels. I request that you rule on that and, if your ruling is as I believe it should be, that you ask the Leader of the Alliance Party to withdraw his remark.

Lord Alderdice: In the Assembly, the terms that you mention are proper parliamentary parlance. Their use outside the Chamber, and for political purposes, is another matter, on which it would not be proper for me to rule. For the purposes of the Assembly, the terms "Unionist" and "Nationalist" are an essential part of the rules of procedure.

Mr Sean Neeson: Further to that point of order, MrPresiding Officer. Mr Hussey having given me notice that he was going to raise this issue I consulted my dictionary. Against the word "sectarian" one finds "member or adherent of a sect".

Lord Alderdice: What you are saying may be a proper justification of things that you have said elsewhere, but it is not a point of order at this stage.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Mr Presiding Officer, can you give a technical clarification of the Order Paper as originally set out? A footnote about MrMcCartney’s motion indicates that the 14 days mentioned there would extend to Monday 18January 1999 because of the Christmas recess. Despite the Christmas recess dates that you announced yesterday, all the amendments indicate a performance date of 21 December. How does the recess impinge on that? What procedures would the Assembly follow if any of these amendments were carried?

Lord Alderdice: It is generally regarded as preferable for motions to refer to performance dates — as you elegantly describe them — rather than numbers of days. Where numbers of days are included in the terms of a motion, they are to be taken as working days, which do not include weekends or recesses. The date of 18January was chosen because consultations with my Advisory Committee indicated that a two-week recess commencing on 18 December would be appropriate.
However, it would be entirely proper for the Assembly to be recalled during the recess to deal with any urgent matters, should that be its wish. That could be done, and would probably best be done in liaison with myself. The Secretary of State is content to oblige us in that regard. Therefore if a resolution were to require a report by 21 December, and the report could not be available before that date, there would be consultations and perhaps eagerness to have a sitting to enable the report to be received as soon as it was available. But it is not for me to give a ruling when the motion, amended or not, has not been passed.

Belfast Agreement

Mr Robert McCartney: I beg to move the following motion:
Noting that
a. no proposals under paragraph 16 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement have yet been made,
b. actions set out in paragraph 8 of strand two of the Belfast Agreement have not been achieved,
c. any party inextricably linked with a paramilitary organisation retaining arms cannot give a total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic means of resolving differences on political issues or oppose the use or threat of force by others for such purposes,
this Assembly calls upon the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) to lay a report on these matters before the House within 14days.
I hope that the motion will command support from every democrat in the Assembly, regardless of party. The Assembly aspires to create democratic institutions of government for the benefit of every citizen, regardless of creed or political loyalty. No democratic institution worthy of the name, can exist if it contains the political representatives of an unlawfully armed organisation which is committed to bringing about change by the use or the threat of acts of terrorism. Such an organisation which states that if the aims of those who speaks for it politically, and with whom it is inextricably linked, are not met, it reserves the right to achieve those aims by the use of violence and to retain the weapons that it currently possesses to make good that threat.
The Belfast Agreement has the avowed purpose of bringing peace through democratic institutions of government, and is alleged to contain the recognition of the principle that any change in NorthernIreland’s constitutional position can be brought about only with the consent of the majority. SinnFéin/IRA have never subscribed to those principles.
What is more important is that no agreement can set aside the fundamental principles of democratic procedure. No agreement can override or supersede the central and basic principles of democracy itself, nor can any political party in a democracy claim that it has an electoral mandate to substitute violence for peaceful persuasion and threaten democratic institutions with violence if its demands are not met.
There is no record of a minority grouping ceasing to use violence for political aims before its objectives have been achieved or the forces of democratic government have defeated it. The IRA is no exception.
At the beginning of the peace process the fundamental principles of the democratic process were emphasised. It was made clear that the requirements for participation were not the demands of parties, or the conditions imposed by parties, but were the essential demands of democracy itself. To use or threaten violence is a violation of democracy, and a determination to retain weapons and the means of violence constitutes a threat in itself.
The Downing Street declaration of 15December1993 made it clear that a permanent end to the use of paramilitary violence, or support for it, a commitment to exclusively peaceful means, and adherence to the democratic process were the necessary criteria to establish the entitlement to participate in democratic politics and enter into dialogue. After the joint declaration, Dick Spring, at that time the Republic’s Foreign Minister, gave DáilEireann his Government’s understanding:
"We are talking about the handing up of arms and are insisting that it would not simply be a temporary cessation to see what the political process had to offer. There can be no equivocation in relation to the determination of both governments in this regard."
From that moment the history of both Governments on this issue has been the opposite of that statement. Far from witnessing unequivocal determination, it has been one of temporising vacillation and weakness. Successive positions have been taken up only to be resiled from in the face of the threat of violence. The IRA, like Hitler in 1938, must have been utterly astonished at the weakness of its adversaries.
On 1 June 1994, in Dáil Eireann, Mr Spring repeated
"There is little point in bringing people into political dialogue if they are doing so on the basis of giving it a try and if it does not work, returning to the bomb and the bullet".
That is what Assemblyman Molloy told a Sinn Féin audience they would do if the political process did not yield the required results: they would go back to doing what they do best. In order to do so, they must necessarily retain their weapons and their Semtex. It is that threat, and capacity to make the threat good, that has produced in successive British Governments a craven policy of appeasement, of surrender to every threat of renewed mainland violence, of concession to every fresh and increasing demand from a criminal conspiracy.
Throughout the talks, the Government’s line was one of a twin-track policy of decommissioning in parallel with political progress towards an agreement. Who did not hear this twin-track policy being repeated with nauseating regularity by the Secretary of State, Dr Mowlam? During the talks not a single bullet, or ounce of Semtex was delivered.
An agreement was reached at the end of those talks on 10 April 1998. The talk’s train left the station and reached its destination, but the decommissioning train never left at all. Since 10April1998, not one single bullet has been handed over nor, according to the IRA, will one ever be handed over until their objective of a united Irish Socialist republic is achieved.
At every point Unionists who trusted the Government were deceived by promises and pledges that were never intended to be fulfilled. How has the principle been observed that only those abiding by the democratic process would be free, not just to participate in politics but to participate as Ministers in Government? How could the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State contemplate having as Ministers in Government members of a party, which they both claim is inextricably linked not only with an armed terrorist organisation but publicly declares its intention to remained armed until its political objectives are achieved.
The proposal to place Sinn Féin in government under these circumstances is utterly outrageous and does such violence to the principles of democracy as to make it possible only if the people have been brainwashed into oblivion. Is there anyone with the remotest interest in political life who does not know that the highest offices in both Sinn Féin and the IRA are occupied by the same people? In ‘The Sunday Times’ last week it declared what we already know: MrAdams and MrMcGuinness are members of the seven-man IRA army council. They are inextricably linked; they are welded together.
While General Pinochet is threatened with extradition, while Saddam Hussein is threatened with extinction, Messrs Adams and McGuinness are welcomed through the front door of Number 10.
Why? Because they, unlike Pinochet and Saddam Hussein, have the capacity, through their inextricable links with the IRA, to threaten destruction on the financial heart of the City of London. For this reason, while declaring Sinn Féin and the IRA to be inextricably linked, Sinn Féin was accepted in the Belfast Agreement as separate and distinct from the IRA. This fiction enabled SinnFéin to confirm a commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations — the same fiction that enabled it to sign up to the Mitchell principles.
The reality, as opposed to the fiction, is that neither Sinn Féin fronting the IRA nor the PUP fronting Loyalist terrorists has any connection whatever with democracy or its fundamental principles. They are the political masks for organisations who have murdered, mutilated and destroyed; organisations which to the present day are engaged in murder, shootings, beatings, intimidation, forced exile, extortion and every form of crime.
The ceasefire is a macabre fraud. Since the beginning of 1998 nearly 500 acts or threats of violence from murder to enforced exile have been recorded by Families Against Intimidation and authenticated by the RUC. Let me give Members the roll-call. Brutal beatings and shootings are a daily occurrence. From 1 to 25November (last month) the IRA exiled nine people, intimidated 67, shot two people and beat seven severely — a total of 85, and they are just the ones we know about. By the end of the month the number was actually over 100. Let us look now at the Loyalists’ cricket score — exiles, nine; intimidations, 48; shootings, five; beatings, seven — a total of 69.
The Secretary of State and the security Minister, Adam Ingram, simply ignore these facts as unhelpful to the peace process. It is no excuse to say, as the Secretary of State responded to me in Parliament, that there is no evidence against the individual perpetrators. Of course there is no evidence, because those who are beaten are threatened with murder, and those who are exiled are threatened with death if they remain. But these fully authenticated brutalities are not simply the work of individual perpetrators.
The indictment is not against individuals; the indictment is lodged against the organisations and the political parties who front them and mask them. These fully authenticated acts of brutality are being carried out in areas which the police, indeed the Chief Constable, admit are dominated by paramilitary groups — the IRA and the UVF — that are fronted by parties in this Assembly.
Do Members recall that during the period of President Clinton’s visit not a squib went off and no one was injured? Do Members recall the six-week sanitisation period that was required before the entry to talks? Not only were there no explosions, not only were there no attacks on the military forces, there were no beatings, there were no shootings, there were no exiles and there were no intimidations. Why? Because Sinn Féin/IRA decreed that there would be none. It would not have been politically expedient for them to have been carried out.
Let me finish by saying this: no mandate, no agreement, no government, no parties can supersede or set aside the fundamental and immutable principles of democracy, morality and justice.
I have different political aims and objectives from the SDLP and from others in the Assembly. However, I share with the SDLP and most of the other parties here a belief in democracy. Violence has no part to play in a political party. A party that claims to be democratic cannot be inextricably linked with terror, murder, mutilation and death.
There is a way forward — and I say this without malice or political gain, but as a democrat. It will entail every party, both Nationalist and Unionist, recognising that the common bonds of democracy are infinitely preferable in the long run to the bonds of an Irish Nationalism that yokes people to a party inextricably linked with the forces of Republican terror. I call upon all democrats, all people of goodwill, all people who are revolted by political violence and terror to join with me, regardless of party, to support this motion.

Mr Sean Neeson: I beg to move amendment1: Leave out all the words after "Noting" and add
"(a) the overwhelming public support for the Belfast Agreement,
(b) the public concern at continuing violence and threat of violence by paramilitary groups and the refusal of some parties to oppose the use or threat of force by others,
(c) the failure of Unionism and Nationalism to reach an accommodation which would allow the implementation of paragraph 16 of strand one and paragraph 8 of strand two of the Belfast Agreement,
(d) the failure of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to produce a report on the issues set out in the Assembly resolution of 1 July,
this Assembly calls on the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) to lay a final report on these matters before the Assembly by 21 December."
I reaffirm my strong support for the Belfast Agreement. It was a long process, and the agreement was a compromise but an honourable one. The people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland voted in their thousands to show their support for those who reached this agreement on Good Friday. The strongest opponents of it are those who walked out. There are now threats from individuals to walk out if an Executive is formed. This is a good agreement, and it is my party’s wish to have it implemented without any further delays.
The vast majority of people of Northern Ireland and of the island of Ireland want to see the agreement working. Mr McCartney referred to the document released yesterday by Families Against Intimidation and Terror (FAIT), which underlines the continuing violence in our society. Almost 1,000 children in Northern Ireland this year have suffered from human-rights abuses. This is unacceptable in any civilised society.
The problem of the continuing violence dates back to the talks process when the Mitchell principles were diluted not only by the two Governments but by the participants of the process. The Alliance Party raised several issues of dispute about breaches of the Mitchell principles. Neither Government acted on any of these issues. The problem started there.
The importance of the Alliance Party’s amendment is that it underlines concern in NorthernIreland not only about the continuing violence but about the threat of violence. I am greatly concerned that some Assembly Members still refuse to oppose the use or the threat of use of force by others for political means.
As MrMcCartney rightly said, the violence comes from several sources. I was deeply shocked and disturbed by the IRA’s statement last week. Decommissioning is an essential part of this process. It was an important part of the agreement and the Assembly cannot fudge the issue. My aim and that of my Colleagues is to ensure that decommissioning is carried out as part of this process.

Mr Patrick Roche: Will the Member give way?

Lord Alderdice: The Member does not have to give way. Only on points of order must a Member give way.

Mr Patrick Roche: I was merely asking the Member if he wished to give way.

Lord Alderdice: Persistent enquiries as to whether a Member will give way are merely attempts to interrupt.

Mr Sean Neeson: Thank you, Mr Presiding Officer. I regret that of all the paramilitary organisations in NorthernIreland, at this stage only the LVF seem to be prepared to start the material decommissioning of weapons. I hope that all sides will soon start the handing over of weapons.
Part of the AllianceParty’s amendment refers to the sitting of the Assembly on 1July, when the House unanimously commissioned the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to move the process forward. The resolution states
"The Assembly invites the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) to consider and, after consultation, make proposals regarding matters referred to the Assembly under section 1(2) of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 and any other matter connected with the future business of the Assembly and report to the Assembly by 14September 1998."
The deadline of 14September has come and gone. I remind Members what paragraph 8 of the agreement says:
"During the transitional period between the elections to the NorthernIreland Assembly and the transfer of power to it, representatives of the Northern Ireland transitional Administration and the Irish Government operating in the North/South Ministerial Council will undertake a work programme, in consultation with the British Government, covering at least 12 subject areas, with a view to identifying and agreeing by 31October1998 areas where co-operation and implementation for mutual benefit will take place."
Sadly, 31October has come and gone, and it does not reflect well on the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) that that deadline has been missed.
The latest failures — only last week — to reach an agreement on structures of government for NorthernIreland and on the North/South implementation bodies have caused a great deal of despair. Unionism and Nationalism could not agree, and that is the bottom line. It is absurd to hear, particularly from some Unionists, calls for three Nationalist and three Unionist implementation bodies.
What should be foremost in their minds is the setting up of Government Departments and implementation bodies for North/South relations that will be for the good of the people of NorthernIreland and for the good of the people of the island of Ireland. That should be the first priority, not that there are three Unionist and three Nationalist implementation bodies.
Meanwhile, as they fudge around, the extremists on both sides are surfacing. Members will be aware of the violence in Derry on Saturday; I hope that there will not be any violence in Portadown this Saturday. Clearly, the continuing threat from the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA does create problems. Where a vacuum exists, and we have experience of 30 years of violence in NorthernIreland, the extremists on all sides take advantage.
The Assembly charged the First and the Deputy First Ministers with responsibilities. Yesterday we had an excellent debate on proposals for a natural gas pipeline for the north-west and another debate on health issues with the Minister. It was clear from both those debates that Members from all parties want to see the transfer of power to the Assembly.

Lord Alderdice: I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Sean Neeson: Powers will only be transferred to the Assembly when structures are in place, and agreement has not been reached on the Government bodies for NorthernIreland and the implementation bodies.
It is the duty of the First Minister (Designate) to reach an agreement as quickly as possible. For that reason, in our amendment, the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) are asked to report to the Assembly next Monday. I hope that this will be achieved and that this matter will be resolved before Christmas.

Lord Alderdice: I call MrMcLaughlin to move the second amendment on the list.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

Mr Denis Haughey: On a point of order, MrPresiding Officer. I and some of my party members have only been issued with copies of the Alliance Party’s first amendment and not with copies of amendments 2 and 3.

Lord Alderdice: I apologise that you do not have the papers. At no stage was there a list with only the first amendment. The amendments submitted last evening were those that appear as amendments1 and 3 on the list. That was published yesterday evening. The third amendment was tabled by 9.30 this morning, and the marshalled list was published. That list was to have been placed in all pigeon-holes, on all notice boards, in the Printed Paper Office and in the Lobby. My apologies if that has not occurred.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, I understand that this list was given out at one door but not at the other door. Why could it not have been given out at both doors?

Lord Alderdice: It was not a matter of papers being given out at the doors. They were to have been made available in all pigeon-holes, on all notice boards and in the Whips’ Offices, and a stock was made available at the Lobby desk. We were attempting to take a belt-and-braces approach. It appears we should have had an elasticated waist as well.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.
I beg to move amendment 2: Leave out all the words after "Noting" and add
"the overwhelming public support for the peace process, this Assembly calls on the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to produce a final report on the implementation of the Belfast Agreement, as mandated on 1July1998, to the Assembly no later than 21December1998."
It was to be expected, given the fractious nature of earlier discussions between the various brands of Unionism, Nationalism and Republicanism, that today’s debate would continue in that unfortunate vein. This fractiousness flies in the face of the clearly expressed will in our community to find a new way of dealing with issues that have traditionally divided us. All politicians and political parties will have to cross the chasm of mistrust that exists as a consequence of the conflict and division. We must find a new language and learn to hear each other. We must also learn to understand the fears and worries of each other’s community.
It has to be pointed out, and this is a simple statement of fact, that there is no such party as Sinn Féin/IRA. No such party signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.

A Member: Does the Member believe in Santa Claus too?

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Well, some people might believe in Santa Claus, and I will leave that with the Member to decide.
Some parties have shown open-mindedness and generosity and have recognised the different contributions that have made the peace process possible. Combined contributions were made in spite of the ungenerous, begrudging and hostile attitude of people who claim to be constitutional politicians. They seem to have a paranoid fear of the silence of guns; they seem to depend on continued conflict to justify their own political analyses and, in some cases, to sustain their political careers.
What do people have to fear from peace? That is the question we have to ask and the reason SinnFéin is moving its amendment. Why are Members so frightened of the alternative to what we have experienced throughout the history of this sectarian statelet?
I do not use this language to offend. It as a matter of historical fact. When I talk to individual Unionist and Nationalist representatives, they are prepared to accept it, and if they can accept it privately, why can they not accept openly the need to work collectively to create a new political dispensation for us all?
The Sinn Féin mandate, which has been so vociferously challenged from across the Floor, has been validated, renewed, reinvigorated and strengthened in election after election. Sinn Féin is a registered political party — open and transparent. Our books may be examined, and our books have been examined. SinnFéin’s analysis and policy is decided at our annual party conferences, at our ard-fheis, in open debate. The media are present throughout the party’s policy discussions. All SinnFéin’s policies are printed and published and available on request. I will supply copies of these to any party that wants to examine them.
SinnFéin is absolutely committed to resolving the conflict and divisions in our society by entirely peaceful means. This is a statement of record. SinnFéin is opposed to punishment beatings and supports the establishment of a new policing service that would be civilianised, civilised and representative of the entire community. That is also a statement of record.
Sinn Féin has stated on the record, on many occasions, its determination to achieve in Ireland a democratic settlement which will see the removal of the gun for ever from Irish politics. That is our commitment, and we want to work — indeed we need to work — with all shades of political opinion to achieve that objective.
I have stated this morning in interviews that without Unionism and, equally, without Republicanism the peace process is worthless. We have no choice; we must work together if we are to resolve this issue.
Reference has been made to newspapers which regularly give details of membership of the Army Council of the IRA. I never see newspaper reports about the leadership of Loyalist organisations such as Ulster Resistance. I wonder what would be said of those who, by their own admission, gave political cover to an organisation which retained guns that were imported from South Africa with the help of the British Army spy, Brian Nelson?
Members of the United Kingdom Unionist Party have clearly set out their stall. What is the status of their statement, and who makes up the UK Unionist Party? They have clearly stated their intention to destroy the Good Friday Agreement, and the clear purpose of the motion is to undermine, subvert and destroy the Good Friday Agreement, and to prevent any implementation, let alone the speedy implementation, of its provisions.
Our amendment accepts the need for a report from the First and Deputy First Ministers Designate to explain the difficulties that they are experiencing and the undue delay in establishing the shadow Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies. The Good Friday Agreement is already in default, and there are constant predictions that we will miss the February deadline for the devolution of political power. There is no valid reason for the failure to implement the spirit and detail of the agreement.
It must be apparent to everyone that the difficulty in the peace process is not caused by the decommissioning issue. Begrudgery and a refusal to accept collective responsibility as parties for a new beginning and for the failures of the past are the causes. There is really no point in continuing to point the finger and say "It was not my fault; it was yours." We all failed. The experiences of people over the past generation have replicated the failure that has bedeviled the North of Ireland since partition. By working together, we have an opportunity to change all that.
On Good Friday we all agreed to a form of coalition Government. We do not talk about that as positively and persistently as we should, but that is what we agreed. That Government would be representative of all shades of political opinion, and would satisfy the criteria on establishing a mandate from the people under the d’Hondt system. Four parties achieved that agreement, and there could be a remarkable coalition. It would certainly be a remarkable demonstration of a new beginning for a political entity that has manifestly failed. There can be no satisfaction in dwelling on that failure, or insisting that we should continue to live with it. Let us change it. Let us abandon all the nonsense of point scoring and recognise what we agreed on Good Friday and go ahead. Let us by doing that achieve the removal of all guns.
There are 130,000 licensed weapons in the Unionist community. Would they be given up willingly? We know why that would not happen. There is considerable fear and distrust and a history that will take time to undo, and attitudes that will take time to unlearn. The genuine concerns that created the conditions of conflict continue to exist.
We politicians have been given a job to do by the electorate.

Lord Alderdice: I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: The people gave us their opinion. There was an election to this coalition Government. In the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, the electorate defeated those representing the "No" camp. Members should now agree on the number and remit of the implementation bodies and the number of Departments and then take the necessary three steps — I am just finishing, Chathaoirligh — which are in black and white in the agreement: establish the Executive, establish the North/South Ministerial Council and bring into being the all-island implementation bodies. Let us take those three steps and show leadership.

Lord Alderdice: I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.
Amendment 3 proposed:
"final report on these matters before the House by 21December." — [Mr Neeson]

Rt Hon David Trimble: I wish to make some comments on the motion and the amendments which have been moved. In the time available it will not be possible to deal with all of the issues involved, but I will touch on the key aspects. The common feature of all the proposals before us, leaving aside the preambles, is that they call, in one form or another, for a report from the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate) to the Assembly on the matters which we have all been engaged in over recent months and which relate to moving the Assembly to the point where it is possible for devolution to take place. Calling for a report on these matters is not unreasonable.
The question arises as to the timing of such a report and the terms of the motion and the amendments that call for it. Reference has been made to the discussions which are taking place in a fairly intensive way. I spent from 11.00am to 11.00pm yesterday, with very few breaks, involved in them.
The discussions at present are at a fairly delicate stage, and I can see no advantage to the Assembly or to the public interest in putting the position which I think the discussions have reached into the public domain. The discussions will resume as soon as possible, but I do not begrudge the time given to the Assembly on the matter.
I do not think there is any advantage to be gained from giving my view of where the discussions had reached at 11o’clock last night, because other people might have a different view. It is not unusual in the midst of discussions for people to form different views of precisely where we are, and we saw the effects of that difference of view over what had or had not been agreed only 10days ago. I do not see any point in going into detail on those matters.
We are focusing in those discussions primarily on the question of North/South co-operation, but we are also taking into account the other strand-one issue, the future structures for the Northern Ireland Assembly. On these matters Mr Neeson was perfectly correct to say that the agreement set a target date (not a deadline — and there is a difference) of 31 October, and it was with that in mind that, on 14 September, in this Chamber, I called for the parties to engage in active discussions on these matters.
Sadly, that call was not immediately responded to for a variety of reasons. It was not until 26October that it became possible for the Deputy First Minister and I to initiate a round of consultations, and those consultations are ongoing.
It was not until 30October that we had any formal communication from the Irish Government — a necessary element in these discussions. At this stage we are not in a position to decide among ourselves what the areas of North/South co-operation should be, and then impose that on the Irish Government. That would fly in the face of the principle of consent. Since we received the views of the Irish Government, we have continued to work on the matter.
Some of the amendments call for a report to be made to the Assembly by 21December. That is not impossible. We might be in a position to make a detailed report by that date. I should very much like that to be the case, and I am quite hopeful about that. However, I do not want to go into detail at this stage lest I raise too many expectations.
At this stage it is not possible to be more definite, and for that reason the amendments moved by the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin could be extremely damaging to the process, as they call for a final report. MrNeeson quoted the original resolution of 1 July. If a final report were made, it would discharge that motion, and would leave the Assembly rudderless. We would then have to meet again to consider how to proceed.
It would not be in the interests of the Assembly or in the public interest to discharge the resolution of 1 July, thus leaving the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) without any instruction or authority on the conduct of business. MrNeeson declared his support for the agreement. I am glad to hear that, but I wonder why he has made a proposal which would damage its implementation.
I shall advise members of my party to vote against the Sinn Féin and Alliance Party amendments, which are substantially the same. I can understand why elements in Sinn Féin might want to throw a spanner in the works, but I wonder why the Alliance Party would want to do that. I therefore caution its members to think again.
I turn now to the substantive motion which has been proposed by MrMcCartney, although I am not sure in what capacity he is acting at the moment. The motion calls upon the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to lay a report on these matters. As I have said, I do not consider the request for a report to be unreasonable. I see from the footnote that that would mean that the Assembly would require a report by Monday 18January 1999, taking into consideration the dates for recess that were referred to earlier by the Initial Presiding Officer.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for a report within that timescale, although it may be, as previous reports have been, simply a report on progress to date. My clear hope is that we will be able to make a final report before that date, but, as I said earlier, I do not wish the Assembly to bind itself to a final report on that day simply to discharge the motion of 1 July. Therefore it would not be unreasonable to expect the kind of report that is set out in this motion and, for that reason, I would be prepared to support it.
There is another reason for my being minded to support the motion. So far, I have commented only on the substance of the motion rather than the preamble. Paragraph c of the preamble reads
"any party inextricably linked with a paramilitary organisation retaining arms cannot give a total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic means".
We have been making that point for many months, and we are glad to see that MrMcCartney agrees with us, and is drawing attention to the key provision in the Agreement which requires a total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.
That requirement is mentioned in four different places in the first few pages of the agreement. It is on the first page, and it appears three times in the strand-one section: in paragraphs 25 and 35 and in paragraph (b) under the heading "Pledge of Office". And in case MrMcLaughlin has forgotten it — least he mistakenly think that to hold office, one has only to qualify under d’Hondt — I remind him of that obligation. Strand one of the agreement, at paragraph 25, clearly provides that persons who are not committed to peaceful means
"should be excluded or removed".
If the Member turns to the section on decommissioning, which ought to be engraved on his heart as it imposes on him an obligation to decommission, he will note that paragraph 1 is expressly cross-referenced to paragraph 25 of strandone. Nothing could be clearer. It is not a precondition; it is a requirement of the agreement.
I am glad that Mr McCartney now supports my party’s position that under the agreement there is a clear obligation to decommissioning, that he has moved away from the position of declaring SinnFéin to be right.

Mr Robert McCartney: rose.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I have just one minute left.
There is another reason I am glad that MrMcCartney has made this move. I adverted to it during the debate on the Second Reading of the NorthernIreland Bill, which took place in the House of Commons in July. If the issue of forming an Executive should arise without there having been a credible beginning to decommissioning, as required by the agreement, we would have to table a motion for the exclusion from office of those who had not begun the process of decommissioning. I am very pleased that MrMcCartney would now support us in such a situation. We welcome support from any source.

Mr Seamus Mallon: In spite of what some Members may think, I quite welcome the proposals in the motion and the amendments. Were I a Back-Bencher in the Assembly, I would have tabled something similar long ago because any political process — but especially one such as ours — must either go forward or go backward. You cannot stand still in politics. There is no statutory point where you can remain stationary without damaging the political process.
I welcome this debate because it provides an opportunity for Members to voice their concern to get movement into the political process. I have no doubt that the process needs movement. It needs to be able to start to fulfil its obligations.
For some time, as I think all Members know, I have been using every opportunity and every means at my disposal to warn of the damage being caused by non-implementation of the agreement. I do not wish to go back over the record, nor will I do so, but anyone involved or observing politics knows that I have tried to ensure that we have the structures and institutions to which we committed ourselves on Good Friday.
There were various reactions. Even parties that have been putting down amendments could not find time just to talk to us during the consultation process, to give us a simple proposal on departmental bodies.
I can see that they might have ideological reasons for not making proposals on implementation bodies, or even co-operation bodies, but they could not even find time to give us a piece of paper on matters such as Departmental structures. That was their fault. It is interesting that one of the parties — or should I say one of the half-parties — that put down these amendments, could not find the time to give us one scrap of paper outlining their ideas on Northern Ireland Departments.
As I said, there have been various reactions to my approach. I was apparently trying to bounce people into things; I was accused of that recently. If trying to do what I have been obligated to by the electorate and by an election in this Assembly is bouncing, so be it: let me bounce.
I have also been accused of grandstanding. I have been trying to come to some arrangement that all the political parties can agree to, that the Prime Minister, who is a signatory to this agreement, and the Irish Government, who is also a signatory, can agree to. If that is grandstanding, let me continue to grandstand.
I was also accused of creating an atmosphere of crisis. I never used that term; I do not believe in that term. What I have consistently said — and I say it again — is that inertia in the political process leads to potential damage to the political process.
Heaven knows that this process is a tender enough plant without our damaging it ourselves. In the eyes of the electorate, it is being damaged in terms of its credibility on the ground and the confidence — or lack of it — that the political parties here have in it. I see that every day. I have contact with most of the parties. Some are difficult to find — and I am not talking about the Ulster Unionist Party with whom I seem to spend my time closeted. One might have to try to locate others in Boston, South Africa or various other parts of the globe, but when they do return, my door is always open, and suggestions will always be willingly received, with all the sincerity I can give them.
I have a problem with the amendments, not because I oppose them, but because there is a difference between a report and a proposal. I do not want to come back to the Assembly with a report — a piece of paper listing all the consultations we have had, all the things we have done and all the people we have spoken to. No, I want to come back, along with the First Minister (Designate), with a proposal that the number of Departments be X, that the Departments be A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K — or whatever — that the functions of each Department be clearly defined and that those in the Assembly who are against what is being proposed (and there will be opposition from Members) have an opportunity to table amendments, to challenge the proposals and subject them to debate. In that way, whatever is decided will have come out of the crucible of debate and will be all the stronger for that.
I do not want a tidy little report, sneaked in before Christmas. That would not give us the opportunity to do all that.
I also want the opportunity to come back, with the First Minister, and present proposals for implementation bodies. I will start this today, but I am not going to relate that to the alphabet.
I want to justify those proposals. I want to give Members the opportunity to challenge them, to put down amendments, to vote against, vote for and speak their mind about them.
I want to do likewise in respect of areas for enhanced co-operation as per the agreement and areas of co-operation, so that when we have finished, no Member will be able to say that the proposals have not been put through the democratic process in accordance with our Standing Orders.
Some will agree, some will disagree, but everybody will be given the opportunity to table amendments. I would like to see this being done this week, but I make no predictions. Over the past two weeks, my confidence in making what I believe to be accurate predictions has been somewhat dented.
I believe it should be done this week, and that is why I find fault with the amendments — they lack imagination.
Why wait until Christmas week? What is wrong with this week? What is wrong with before Friday? What is wrong with the people who are putting down amendments instead of going at it with an almighty bash?

Mr David Ford: Does the Minister accept that "by 21December" does not preclude this week?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I do. The Member’s profundity and perspicacity never cease to amaze me.
I want to see this business done. Members have charged the First Minister (Designate) and myself with doing it. They are right to tell us that it has not been done quickly enough, and I agree with them, but instead of churning out all the routine speeches about issues which are nothing to do with structures, they should speak their mind today.
Members who could not consult with us or submit their views in writing should tell us today what they think about the proposals for Departments and the implementation bodies. Perhaps the First Minister (Designate) and I will be able, as a result of your inspiration, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, to come back by 21 December — though preferably this week — and say "Here are proposals. Pass them or reject them."
I make no excuses for anybody — even the Chair. The time since 1July has been one of the most difficult periods in politics on this island. We have gone through a crucible in political life — from a Drumcree situation to an Omagh situation to a Ballymoney situation. For these reasons we should be inspired to move and create the structures and the institutions which are required. We owe it to ourselves, to those who elected us, and, indeed, in a strange way, to those who went to the trouble of putting down these amendments today.

Lord Alderdice: I must ask all Members, no matter how distinguished, to heed my requests. Important matters are being dealt with, and people have been impatient to hear about them. That is understandable. It is also understandable that when making a speech, one tries to save the most important part to the last. However, I appeal to Members to show courtesy.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I do not see why you immediately discriminate when it comes to my party. You tell us to keep to our time. I do not intend to do that today. I have as much right to rise, wave to you and continue. I am a parliamentarian who is used to the order of the House, but not in this House. Everyone who has spoken so far has got away with running over time, yet when I stand up you immediately call on me to keep to my time.

Lord Alderdice: I was referring not to the Member who was to follow but to Members who had gone before.

Mr Peter Robinson: It was too late, he having been given 14 minutes.

A Member: He is well worth 14 minutes.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Of course, in this House we do not have democracy. We heard the Deputy First Minister (Designate) talking about the crucible of debate. There is no real debate. We have a system of voting under which nothing can be passed except with a majority of Members on each side of the divide. It is easy for the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to say "Put it to the vote." The vote is meaningless. It does not represent the ballot box or the number of people who voted to send representatives to this House, so that can easily be dismissed.
The other point that needs to be dismissed, is the constant harping by some Members about how the people have spoken. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains over 400 amendments that Members of the House of Commons were not given time to consider. Those were not in the agreement. It is not true to say that they were what the people voted for; they never saw those amendments.
The Sinn Féin/IRA spokesman spoke in this debate today. The people of NorthernIreland were no doubt listening to hear whether there was going to be some change in the attitude of the people that he speaks for. It is quite evident that there will be no change. I am reminded of a quotation in a book published after the Pope visited Drogheda. SinnFéin answered the Pope as follows:
"Force is by far the only means of removing the evil of the British presence in Ireland ... we know also that upon victory the Church would have no difficulty in recognising us."
The IRA has not changed.
We did not say that the IRA and SinnFéin were inextricably linked. Those were the words of the then Prime Minister, MrMajor, and of the present Prime Minister, who repeated them. The Secretary of State, with whom all these people have a perpetual love-in, also repeated this in the House. When they go to Stormont House, let them argue with her. Do not let them come here and say "We have no connection whatsoever with the IRA". What an abominable and atrocious lie.
Mr Adams, who is not with us today, said that it would be intellectually and morally irresponsible to distance himself from the IRA, yet his spokesman in the House says, "Oh, we are not associated with it at all, would not touch it with a barge pole," to quote the Deputy Leader of the UUP.
I understand that FAIT is a Government-sponsored body and that one of its leaders was an Alliance Party candidate who was not elected to the Assembly. It cannot be said that FAIT has any sympathy with the party that I lead, yet it has issued a report saying that those who have been released from prison are now engaged in this beating-up campaign. I asked the Prime Minister when he was here — he did not want to see me, and then decided that he had to see me for some reason best known to himself — "How many released prisoners have been rearrested and put back in prison?" He said "I will find out." He wrote to me and told me that none had been.
His answer is wrong. There are people who have been released and rearrested — back at the old game of violence and intimidation. A thousand children have been put through the crucible of intimidation.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order. A former IRA man works for FAIT, which made allegations against Loyalist prisoners. [Interruption] Allegations are being made here, and people could be taken back to prison. People from the Loyalist side — and I can only speak for the Loyalist side — were not involved, as has been claimed by a former IRA man, and Dr Paisley is taking a former IRA man’s word for it.

Lord Alderdice: I have listened with some care, and I do not see that that is a point of order.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I got it in anyway.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: rose.

Mr Robert McCartney: Did the Initial Presiding Officer hear the remark that was made after the Member sat down: "I got it in anyway"? Are spurious points of order going to be used to make interjections of that kind?

Lord Alderdice: This is not the first time that this has happened. If Members choose to breach the rules by which we try to live, everyone will do it and our proceedings will become a shambles. I appeal to Members to hold to the rules as best they can. Since it is my view that the point raised was not a point of order, the time taken to hear and to deal with it will not come out of DrPaisley’s time.
Please continue, Dr Paisley.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I did think that it was a point of order. [Interruption]

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I never mentioned this man’s party or anything to do with his party. If the cap fits, let him wear it. Evidently the cap did fit, and it hurt him. That is why he is screaming.
The House today should take note of the cry of the 1,000 children and not listen to those who are not prepared to face up to their responsibility with regard to that. Go and tell the Hegarty family in CountyLondonderry what the relationship was with them and with Mr McGuinness of IRA/Sinn Féin. Try to sell them the story of peace and love and goodwill and harmony.
The IRA has not and will not change. How could it? It is tied by its own constitution, which states
"The Army Authority shall retain, maintain and ensure the safety of all armaments, equipment and other resources ... until such time as the sovereignty and unity of the Republic of Ireland has been attained."
It will not attain that. The IRA may pussyfoot with the British Government, and it may think that it will destroy the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It may think that it will put the Protestant and Unionist people under its jackboot, but it has another think coming. Members of the IRA can do what they like, say what they like, kill as many as they like, destroy the children of this country and wreck homes, hearts, mothers and fathers, but they will not win the battle because truth is not on their side. The lie will be dethroned and truth shall reign.
The IRA says that only when there is a settlement leading to a united Ireland will decisions be taken to decommission. Let us nail the lie that within two years these men of blood will hand in their weapons. They will not be handed in unless they achieve their objective, and they will not achieve that.
The British Government have released 214terrorist prisoners, and IRA punishment attacks have continued, with 36 shootings and 49 beatings this year. On one side of the balance troop levels have been reduced by 1,500 to 15,500 and team military patrolling has ended. On the other side, the IRA has repeated that it will not give up its arsenal, describing calls for disarmament as a red herring. Military bases in Londonderry and Strabane —

Lord Alderdice: I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: — observation posts at Crumlin Road in Belfast, checkpoints at Newry, Aughnacloy and Belfast Airport have been closed. Estimated IRA stocks are 10 tonnes of Semtex, 900assault rifles, six ground-to-air missiles, 100pistols and 250 machine guns. Arrests under anti-terrorist legislation are down by 80%. That is the Government’s balance sheet. New commissions on policing, justice and equality have been established, and there is regular and better access to Ministers and officials for Sinn Féin/IRA. There have been three murders this year by the IRA, and probably £1million has been raised in the USA.

Lord Alderdice: I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Today’s issue of ‘The Daily Telegraph’ states
"Miss Mowlam’s calculated blindness to what is happening in Northern Ireland goes beyond misguided idealism."
The paper states that there is a
"refusal to uphold the law".
Despite all those warnings the Government have ploughed ahead with returning yet more gangsters to Ulster’s streets. Sooner or later some of them will return to murder, and Mr Blair and Miss Mowlam will have to shoulder the blame.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I listened to Mr McCartney with interest. He continually talks about punishment beatings and decommissioning. How can I ask loyalists to hand in weapons when the proposer of the motion claims that the Good Friday Agreement is a sell-out? The Chief Constable expects violence from dissident Republicans, the IRA has not said that the war is over, and Mr Paisley is preaching doom and gloom.
12.00
The challenge is not for me to convince Loyalists to decommission under present circumstances. The challenge is for all parties elected to the Assembly to create the political conditions that allow us to move forward. In 1994 the Progressive Unionist Party clearly stated that any citizen in possession of information relating to anti-social behaviour should report such information to the RUC. Party activists have worked with community representatives and the RUC to find solutions to this problem. The Progressive Unionist Party will work to influence the Ulster Volunteer Force and Red Hand Commandos to decommission their war materials.
If this process works, then decommissioning is a possibility. If it fails, the chance for decommissioning fails with it. The Progressive Unionist Party reaffirms its commitment to the Mitchell principles.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Women’s Coalition has listened attentively to the debate and is acutely aware of the difficulties facing both sides in this delicate, difficult and dangerous journey. The Women’s Coalition, like all political parties that have signed up to the GoodFriday Agreement, has pledged to use its influence to bring about decommissioning. That is exactly what we are doing. We believe that the full implementation of the GoodFriday Agreement will bring about decommissioning.
We agree with the former Presbyterian moderator who said that the issue of decommissioning must not be allowed to wreck the agreement. We must get over this hurdle. Seventy-one per cent of the people of NorthernIreland supported the agreement. I was elected in North Down to defend the agreement and will do so with everything in my power.
One of the aims is
"to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement … of the agreement".
That means May2000 — only 17months away. If paramilitary weapons are not decommissioned by May2000, the agreement will collapse. We have waited 30years, and we have wasted 3,000lives. We want decommissioning immediately, but we are prepared to wait. Can we not wait for another 300days?
We can not and must not play into the hands of those who seek to destroy this fragile peace. The only people who will gain should this agreement fall apart are the armed dissidents who oppose it. We, like all right-thinking people in the Province, want to see the guns buried forever. We call on the Republican and Loyalist parties, the camps and the paramilitaries to publicly declare their support for the Good Friday Agreement.
We want agreement on the outstanding issues of departmental structures and North/South bodies. The Deputy First Minister (Designate) asked us to provide him with some suggestions. The Women’s Coalition has been disappointed at the lack of proper consultation with the smaller parties in the last few weeks. We have submitted our documents and have been involved in negotiations. However, over the last two weeks, negotiations have been closed. The Assembly should not operate in such a way.
The Women’s Coalition agrees that there should be 10 Departments which must be tailored to meet the specific needs and the changing culture of society. Issues such as equality — and I am not talking just about gender equality — social inclusion, children, families, Europe, training, education and public health need to be given pride of place in these Departments — a new place in a new NorthernIreland.
Also, we insisted that issues such as victims, reconciliation and the promotion of a culture of tolerance, which we cannot ignore, should be included in the agreement.
We have listened to the debates and negotiations on North/South bodies. These have been valuable, but we must remember that we are not creating anything new — all this has been done before in Europe. We believe in the value of North/South and East/West co-operation as a means of achieving greater economic and social cohesion on this island and between these islands. We want agreement on the North/South bodies, and we have been encouraged by movement in the past 24hours.
However, we want to underline the fact that the setting up of North/South bodies and structures is not the only way to achieving greater understanding between the people of this island. Co-operation at a social level should go hand in hand with economic co-operation. We want to see the creation of a North/South body which will encompass art, culture, heritage and language as one. To leave the Irish language in a body on its own would defeat the purpose of the exercise — encouraging North/South dialogue.
Transport does not have to be dealt with in a North/South context, because such issues can be dealt with in an East/West one. We are talking about ports and air transport as well as about road and rail. To encourage understanding, greater effort should be put into the movement of workers, students, teachers and other people on this island. Examples of the work carried out by Co-operation North, the CBI and IBEC should be supported and enhanced.
Those who fear a loss of identity as a result of a North/South structure should consider the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which has been a North/South body for many years. The result has not made its Northern members any less Northern or its Southern members any less Southern.
I call on the Assembly to agree on North/South bodies and Departments before 21December and to form an executive. That is how we can all get what we want — violence and the threat of it off our streets for ever.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I will not dwell on the issuing of reports and on the amendments from the Alliance Party. Suffice it to say that I agree with MrMallon’s comment that we are working to get agreements on outstanding areas. In my view, the sooner the better, and in my view the agreements should be in place before Christmas.
That brings us to the next stage, which is governed to some extent by MrMcCartney’s motion. I have no problems with his proposal. Part (c) of the motion could have been written by any Ulster Unionist. It is exactly what other members of my party and I have been saying for the past 10months — despite the criticism of those Unionists who have been telling us "No, that is nonsense." It is contained in the agreement, in paragraph 4 of the Declaration of Support:
"We affirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences".
Paragraph 25 of strand one states
"Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed".
Under the heading "Transitional Arrangements," it is stated
"Shadow Ministers shall affirm their commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and their opposition to any use or threat of force."
Part (b) of the Pledge of Office sets out the
"commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
The chapter on decommissioning recalls the provisions of paragraph 25 — the exclusion or removal of office clause. The agreement is quite clear. Decommissioning is inclusive and explicit and is a requirement of any Member who seeks to hold office in an Executive. It is in the agreement, chapter and verse.
We are moving towards an agreement on strands one and two, and the question that will arise is whether Sinn Féin can take part. I have said publicly that Sinn Féin’s present position is one of self exclusion. It cannot retain the capacity to do 1,000Omaghs, in terms of a Semtex arsenal, and claim to be committed to democracy and non-violence. The holding of such an arsenal is a threat.
Decommissioning is an obligation under the agreement, and it is the demand of civic and democratic society. It is a sine qua non. Sinn Féin must have understood that when it supported the agreement, and must have realised that there would be calls for decommissioning. Under the agreement, the date for total disarmament is May2000. Not just Sinn Féin but the Provisional movement and Loyalists signed up to that.
Members are looking for a start date for decommissioning and a programme with a verifiable and credible beginning. However, DannyMorrison has said that the IRA will not give up the rust from a single gun. There is no way forward for anyone on that basis.
The armed struggle has failed, the central strategy of which was to make the cost of the Union so high that no British Government would be prepared to pay it. They imagined that in this way they could get rid of the British presence. This strategy ignores the fact that the British presence in Ireland is the Unionist community, the million-plus men and women living in the north-east corner of the island who hold themselves to be British. All the armed struggles in the world could not remove such a British presence. It seems that Sinn Féin is prepared, at least privately if not publicly, to recognise that.
The agreement contains a consent principle. The inhabitants of the island of Ireland are not a nation in the political sense. They are not now, never have been and probably never will be. Who says this? The people of the island say it. They agree that there are two political entities, which means that there is no right to national self-determination in terms of the entire population, no right to unity of the national territory, and no right to national self-government. The armed struggle has failed, and there is no logic in the maintenance of an arsenal of weapons. The Provisional IRA must have understood that when it moved forward on the agreement. It must have understood that it was signing up to decommissioning.
The hour is late but by no means too late. We are not quite ready for the appointed day — the transfer of powers. Once we get to that point, then we have the crunch. Unless there is movement from the Provisionals the question becomes: is the process to be destroyed because Sinn Féin will not honour its obligations or do we move forward without it?
We have three options: to move forward with Sinn Féin and decommissioning; to wait until Sinn Féin is comfortable with the agreement and its obligations; to carry on without movement. The choice will come soon, and it is up to Sinn Féin. With all that has been invested in this process we cannot allow that irredentist group within the Provisional movement who insist on retaining its arsenal to bring the process down. The consequences do not bear thinking about.
I do not have a problem with MrMcCartney’s proposal; it is exactly what we have been saying for the past months — something, of course, that the members of the DUP deny. [Interruption]
If this is a sell-out and a betrayal why is the Member here? He is here because he has nowhere else to go. We are all in the same boat. We all have nowhere else to go.
The situation is that we can go forward with Sinn Féin and the Provisional movement or go forward without them, and the choice rests with the Provisional movement which should face up to its responsibilities.

Dr Sean Farren: There is an understandable sense of frustration, annoyance and perhaps even anger in the Assembly and beyond at the delay in reaching agreement on institutional aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. As one close to the negotiations over recent weeks, I would have preferred to have come here to contribute to a debate on the progress that had produced agreement. As in many situations when gaps are being closed, the remaining gaps become increasingly more difficult, and in our situation those gaps are informed by age-old fears and apprehensions. Hence our remaining difficulties. I am convinced, however, that the gaps can and will be closed.
The opportunity given by today’s debate allows me to stand back from the immediate concerns of those negotiations and remind myself that what was achieved on Good Friday was a balanced agreement that took account of the aspirations and allegiances of our two communities. Hence the agreement’s effective recognition of the Nationalist community’s aspirations: that community’s identity and its desire to see closer relationships develop between the North and the South, especially through the North/South Ministerial Council.
The Good Friday Agreement also recognised and respected the Unionist community’s allegiances and aspirations by giving practical expression to its desire for closer relationships between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom through the British-Irish Council.
Crucially, the Good Friday Agreement enshrined the principle of consent as the only acceptable, democratic basis for constitutional change. The carefully constructed balance extends to the manner in which all the matters treated under "confidence-building" are to be advanced. They are not directed, and neither I nor my party interpret them as being directed, towards allaying the concerns of only one community.
On the question of institution building under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, we must seek to progress in a way which continues to reflect that overall sense of equity. In particular, what we have been attempting to address in recent discussions on cross-border bodies is the creation of something for which there is no precedent. Hence some of the difficulties which have arisen.
We want to create a council which will be a political expression of the desire within the Nationalist community for a tangible link with the rest of the people of Ireland. It will also, in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement, provide initiatives for the mutual benefit of people in both parts of Ireland, and it is in this regard that it will probably be welcomed by others outside that tradition. Above all, it will allow, on a daily basis, the promotion of understanding and reconciliation between the hitherto divided people throughout this island.
Pursuing such ends, the council cannot, and will not, be a means of imposing change in violation of the principle of consent. We can, and must, deliver a package of implementation bodies and areas for enhanced North/South co-operation that will address real needs, and address them in a manner that will significantly contribute to the economic, social and cultural aspects of life in both parts of the island.
An endorsement of the emphasis on economic co-operation comes not just from the Social Democratic and Labour Party but from the wider community, and particularly from the business sector. These sources of support should allay the fears and concerns that others in the House may have about North/South implementation bodies. The Confederation of British Industry and IBEC have been referred to. They have made substantial contributions to economically directed initiatives under the remit of the North/South Council.
I recently addressed a major meeting convened by Chamberlink in CountyMonaghan. More than 250representatives from chambers of commerce North and South came together to discuss how they might enhance their own and each other’s businesses. The message to me and Assemblyman Kennedy from the Ulster Unionist Party, who also addressed that meeting, was that we have to take initiatives, where it is in our remit to do so, that will address the need to promote North/South trade and trade beyond this island.
Last night’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’ highlighted the contribution that has been made by one of our leading economists in this area and welcomed the prospect of the North/South Council’s providing enhanced co-operation on economic matters.
A cheann-chomhairle.
Ní ar chúrsaí eacnanaíochta amháin a bheidh an bhéim taobh istigh den chomhairle trasteorann cuid thábhachtach dár noidhreacht Gaelach. Is é an agus tábhachtach dúinn uile an oidhreacht cheanna agus beidh béim thádhachtach ar an oidhreacht sin taobh istich den chomhairle trasteorann.
I want to see that emphasis on our Gaelic culture, which will be part of the North/South Council’s remit, widened and broadened to include the cultural traditions of all our people.
In conclusion, as we consider the immediate issues, I remind Members of the wider implications of the agreement, and of all the obligations which it places on all of us. I refer in particular to the obligations on disarmament and decommissioning. In a previous debate, I said that I do not see decommissioning as merely a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement, and that those who currently possess arms and those who wield influence over them should regard decommissioning as an honourable and necessary contribution to the establishment of a lasting, peaceful democracy.
I believe that we will achieve agreement on the outstanding matters very soon, and that we will be able to provide the people who elected us with an agreement on institutions, and begin to operate those institutions early in the new year.
The sitting was suspended at 12.35 pm and resumed at 2.01 pm.

Mr Gardiner Kane: For the past few weeks the PrimeMinister, TonyBlair, has been trying to jump-start the Belfast Agreement — if, indeed, it ever got off the ground. TonyBlair should have been made aware that, in developing a strategy for the future of NorthernIreland, we have had the benefit of much experience. Almost everything has been tried, at least once. He could now be forgiven for comparing the Belfast Agreement with the group that tried to set up a small, anarchist community, only to find that the people would not obey the rules.
The First Minister, DavidTrimble, finds himself in the same predicament. Having called for paramilitaries to disarm in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he now finds himself between a rock and a hard place. The next day, the newly elected army council of the IRA ruled out demands for a handover of weapons. Mr Trimble must have felt that the bee of sorrow had stung his heart yet again — this is the third time this year that the IRA has dismissed calls for decommissioning, and SinnFéin maintains that it is not in a position to deliver on arms.
The Secretary of State, MoMowlam, has said that the political parties agree to all aspects of the Belfast Agreement — all, that is, except peace and goodwill to all men.
MrTrimble may take comfort in the knowledge that no one means all he says and that very few say all they mean. He should also remember the philosophy that
"fear is the foundation of most Governments"
when deliberating on the allocation of ministerial positions. Will the First Minister confirm that no ministerial body will be appointed which includes Sinn Féin while the IRA maintains its stockpile of arms and explosives? MrTrimble would do well to remember the words of MrJohnTaylor, the then Home Affairs Minister, in December1972 when he warned
"Enjoy this Christmas. It may be your last in peace. In the new year, you will probably have to resist an imposed solution by the British Government."

Mr Pat Doherty: A Chathaoirligh, before referring to the Sinn Féin amendment, I want to pick up on a few comments that have been made by Members across the Floor.
MrMcCartney said that no mandate, no agreement and no Government can set aside democracy. That is complete gobbledegook. How does anyone receive a mandate except through the democratic process? How did the agreement, parts of which we are discussing, receive its endorsement? And how, other than through the democratic process, are Governments elected?
Unionists in general are in danger of believing their own misinformed propaganda. For the record, I repeat what MitchelMcLaughlin said earlier: there is no such party as Sinn Féin/IRA.
There is a party known as SinnFéin, which sought, and got, a democratic mandate in the Assembly election. DrPaisley quoted from newspapers; he quoted amusingly from a book wherein he nearly got friendly with the Pope; and he quoted from an alleged IRA constitution. I suppose that he would know more about that than anyone else. The claim that Sinn Féin speaks for the IRA appears nowhere in any of our literature, and our constitution in particular. If any Members would like a copy, as they are given to quoting from constitutions, I will make one available. Sinn Féin speaks for Sinn Féin and for the people who vote for us. Unionism needs to abandon the negative mindset of continuous misinformation.
To return to the motion before us, I noted MrTrimble’s statement that it was "not impossible" that by 21December he could bring forward some sort of report. We do not want "some sort of report". We want a final report, and we call upon the First Minister (Designate) and his Deputy to provide it, not later than 21December. Mr Mallon has said that it could be done in half a day, and I believe that. Mr Trimble said that he was negotiating until 11 o’clock last night, and I know that to be true, as some members of our delegation were here until 11.20pm. The situation is agreed in principle; there are only the fine details to be worked out.
If Unionists have the political will, they can have closure on this issue in half a day. I urge them to show courage and get on with implementation of the agreement. They are fond of quoting paragraph25 and saying that it has to be supported. That is true, but paragraph 16 of strand one also has to be supported, as does paragraph 8 in strand two. Let me reiterate that Sinn Féin supports the agreement — every single paragraph. We do not support some parts of it and ignore others. We support all of it.
Recently Mr Trimble said that he — and I think he meant both himself and Unionism collectively — put a great price on the precise use of words. SinnFéin also puts a great price on the precise use of words. There are no excuses left for Unionists to refuse to implement the agreement. They need political courage, vision and a sense of history. In this unique situation that has been created with the Belfast Agreement, they should have the courage to implement it. They have the authority to do so.

Mr Alan McFarland: In the light of the new relationship brought about by the agreement, I do not wish to unnecessarily annoy Sinn Féin, but I hope that this venture into reality will not elicit from the Member for North Belfast, Mr Kelly, another threat that the views of the Ulster Unionist Party might bring about a renewal of IRA violence. He, of course, uttered these words at the weekend.
I understood that the guns of the IRA were silent and that the IRA had joined the constitutional road that was the way forward. Surely the assurances of Sinn Féin as to the direction of the Republican movement cannot be worthless.
In the early 1970s the IRA was in a mess, with individual battalions conducting unco-ordinated operations, and Sinn Féin was a Cinderella organisation with little direction. In the late 1970s the IRA reorganised into its cell structure. A strategy document, which was found by the Gárdaí in the Dublin flat of SeamusTwomey, the then IRA Chief of Staff, made it clear, as reported at the time, that
"Sinn Féin will come under the army at all levels".
The relationship between the two organisations was fairly clear at that stage. There followed the evolution of the Armalite-and-the-ballot-box strategy, with Sinn Féin moving onto the political stage that it occupies today while the IRA continued its terrorist campaign.
One has to be in awe of Sinn Féin at local government level. If someone in Turf Lodge gets a burst pipe he calls the Sinn Féin centre. Unlike the rest of us, who take a load of guff from the local plumber and wait about a week and a half to get something fixed, within half an hour the Turf Lodge plumber comes round and the pipe is fixed. How is it, I wonder, that Sinn Féin can have such influence with plumbers? The answer, of course, is that Sinn Féin and the IRA are — in the words of two successive Prime Ministers — "inextricably linked".
Sinn Féin claim that they are separate, but evidence of dual membership is piling up. Sinn Féin’s claims of not speaking for the IRA are ridiculous. The paramilitaries from all sides were involved in the talks quite clearly because it was understood that they were able to speak for their respective organisations.
I am encouraged to know that when discussions are taking place with key members of Sinn Féin they are, in reality, taking place with the IRA — straight from the horse’s mouth, from those who can produce the goods.
I have some quiz questions for Members now. This came out of recent court cases and newspaper reports. Although Sinn Féin know the answers, they are not excluded as it is in the spirit of the agreement. Which two senior Sinn Féin Assembly Members left the IRA Army Council to go political but rushed back when they lost control to southern command, which bombed Canary Wharf? Which senior Sinn Féin Assembly Member was identified as the adjutant general of the IRA and army council member during the case which Thomas Murphy took against the ‘The Sunday Times’ in Dublin? Which senior Sinn Féin Member comes from the Belfast Brigade of the IRA and sits on the army council? I could go on, but the flavour of the relationship is plain to see.
I was at the last three days of the talks, and it was quite clear to everyone there the spirit in which they were being conducted. It was clearly understood by the constitutional parties that decommissioning was a key part of that agreement. We were concerned that the words in the agreement were not strong enough, and we received written and verbal assurances from the Prime Minister that, in the spirit of the agreement, decommissioning would start in parallel with prisoner releases. On the basis of those assurances we signed up to it.
Where are we now? In the last two or three weeks there has been an IRA convention. I see from yesterday morning’s ‘Irish News’ that the word on the street is that authority to take the decision on decommissioning was passed down to the seven-man army council. Therefore authority rests, one could argue, on Members of this House.
The IRA may need the space in which to sort out and convince its grass roots, and we are happy enough to give them that space. In the end the requirement of the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the island of Ireland for decommissioning must be met. We need to be realistic. The IRA must prepare for decommissioning. If responsibility for it has been moved down to the army council, if we can get our other structures sorted out in here, then the time must be right for decommissioning, and they really must get on with it.
I am in full agreement with and support MrMcCartney’s motion.

Mr John Dallat: Many things have happened since this motion was submitted by MrMcCartney, including some interesting developments in his party. As HaroldWilson said,
"A week is a long time in politics."
Delays in setting up the structures within NorthernIreland and between the North and the South are unacceptable. The fact that MrMcCartney chooses to exploit such disappointments should serve to warn of the dangers of further delay. Only those with a vested interest in destroying the Assembly benefit from such delays.
Yesterday’s four-hour debate on the Health Service showed how urgent it is that we move on and serve the people who elected us. There are many other pressing issues relating to health and social services, education and training, economic development and tourism — to mention just a few — which require the involvement of Assembly Members at the earliest opportunity. The honeymoon period is over, and the hard work must begin.
Members of the public are not impressed with Assembly parties which are bogged down in the past and afraid to move on and face the future. Let us stop exploiting the weaknesses in each other, because that only recoils on ourselves and leaves everyone worse off. The SDLP does not have these problems; it has been waiting, since the downfall of the power-sharing Executive of 1974, to begin the process of partnership government. It has been annoyed by the lack of progress and not impressed by those who gloat over the delays — and this motion clearly sets out to do that. However, as we debate the motion, the work is going on in this building, and success will come — perhaps sooner than our opponents believe.
Sniping from the sidelines has been the favourite pastime of too many politicians in the past. Why do they do it? How many lives has it cost? Who has benefited? Certainly not the 71% who voted for the agreement and now feel very let down by the lack of vision and progress.
We can quote from the past. All of us can do that. DrPaisley quoted from a book this morning, but what does it achieve? If I quoted what DrPaisley said in the late 1970s, when he said that he would rather trust the devil than the RUC, would that achieve anything? Certainly not. If anyone doubts my word, let him go to the Assembly Library and check Hansard. But that is not why we are here.
One thing is sure: the past is the past and it is gone for ever. There is no going back. That simply is not an option — not now or at any time in the future. This time the wreckers and the begrudgers cannot win. Of that I am sure because slowly, but surely, there is a sense of community developing from the bottom up, and they know it. Much of this positive action has emerged gradually from economic regeneration groups, peace and reconciliation boards and a whole variety of community-based activity. We are in a much different position now than we were in 1974; there is a community out there solidly committed to backing the Assembly’s efforts to move forward.
Many Members are involved in these activities, and they know that the day of the politician who thought for everyone and made all the decisions on his own, mostly to protect his own self-interests, is gone. People are no longer prepared to put up with the claptrap of mistrust and dissension. In such a world, arms and explosives, like the behaviour of failed politicians trapped in the past, become irrelevant. They do not count any more, and holding up the work of the Assembly over such an issue makes no sense at all.
In a new environment where there is developing trust, all guns will disappear, both mentally and in reality. In a new society built on partnership and trust there will be no place for weapons of war, no urge to feel the need to defend, because the greatest weapon of all is the ability to trust each other. To date, there has not been enough of that. We need to move forward, and we look forward to working with people in other parties who are as committed as we are to ensuring that the future is different from the past, that it is built on trust rather than fear, and offers hope rather than despair.
I believe that before this week is over, there will be agreement, and the people of Ireland — north and south — will be able to have the Christmas present they have all wanted for over 30 years. That is the real business of this Assembly. We are ready and willing to finish the business rather than waste time on motions which emphasise failure rather than hope for the future. Pantomimes belong to the schools and theatres outside — the Assembly is in the business of making this country work.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Some of us were beginning to wonder when we would have the opportunity to debate such issues again, and it is no thanks to the initiative of either the First Minister (Designate) or his Deputy that this debate is taking place today.
I congratulate all those responsible for ensuring that it is taking place. Members should have the opportunity to debate such crucial issues. I was perturbed to hear the First Minister (Designate) indicate that come the date specified — 18January— we may once again be listening to another interim report, although I noted the remarks of the Deputy First Minister (Designate), who was not looking forward to that prospect at all.
Amazement is added to my concern when I consider that MrTaylor, as deputy leader of the UUP, has already said at a press conference that 10 Ministries have been agreed. I fail to understand, therefore, why we are not hearing details of that today. MrMcGimpsey said that we might have some agreement before Christmas, and I sincerely hope that if there is such an agreement, the Assembly will be reconvened to allow Members to debate these issues and consider them properly rather than having to wait until another day.
The main thrust of this proposal centres on the fundamental issue of decommissioning — an issue which has been fudged time and time again — and I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate it once more. It is a fundamental democratic pre-requisite that any party seeking to take part in the democratic process — never mind taking part in democratic government — should be completely committed to democratic, peaceful methods and should be prepared to give up weaponry, illegal armies and paramilitary gangs.
We are in this situation because during the talks process which led to the agreement and in the agreement itself the issue of decommissioning was never really grasped. It was fudged and put off to another day. The difficulties we are facing in getting others to move on that issue is the result of the fudging that has taken place in the past. Those who now demand the handover of weapons and were prepared to sit and negotiate with IRA/Sinn Féin whilst they held on to their weapons, are in a difficult position.
They say that it is essential — and I agree with this — that to be committed to an exclusively peaceful and democratic process means that there must be no weapons on the table, under the table, or outside the door. That was the same requirement for entry into the talks process to begin with, yet IRA/Sinn Féin were admitted into the talks process, were seated at the talks table, were allowed to complete the talks process, and not one Armalite or a single ounce of Semtex was handed over. That is why Members on these Benches lack credibility on the issue of decommissioning. The very demands they make now they previously made during the talks, and yet it was fudged, and IRA/Sinn Féin were admitted.
We are told that decommissioning is an essential component of the talks and the peace process. The word "essential" is used but we never see any movement on the issue. Despite the concessions, the paramilitaries and their representatives are not even prepared to begin movement on what the people of Northern Ireland demand.
The DUP has been consistent and clear throughout. We do not rely on the Belfast Agreement, and those who use it as the basis for demanding decommissioning are relying on a false premise. It should demand that decommissioning begins before IRA/Sinn Féin get into government, and before terrorist prisoners are released. The tragedy is that the agreement does not demand such a move. I have read it carefully and it does not say, as was claimed in the debate, that decommissioning has to be completed within two years. It states that those who signed the agreement will
"use any influence they may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years".
I can almost hear the argument: "We have used all the influence at our disposal and we will continue to do that ad infinitum." There is no demand in the agreement for the completion of decommissioning within two years.
It is the clear demand of democracy, and of the people of Northern Ireland, that those who want to gain positions in government and play a full role in the democratic process must be unarmed, and should not have at their backs those who are engaged in intimidation, racketeering or punishment beatings. It is also the demand of the Prime Minister. In Northern Ireland and in his own handwriting, he pledged to the people that terrorists and their frontmen would not benefit from the agreement unless violence was over forever, done with for good. It is the Government’s responsibility to see that Sinn Féin/IRA and others do not benefit from the agreement unless decommissioning is completed.
The House has been lectured by Sinn Féin spokespersons about a new start, a new beginning, looking to the future, as if the arms issue applied only to the past. I remind the House that Mr Kearney, who was murdered in the New Lodge area in my constituency, died as a result of the use of IRA guns only a few months ago. Guns are still being used on the streets of Northern Ireland. They are not becoming irrelevant, they are being used to murder and inflict harm on people, and to exile and threaten them. Decommissioning cannot be put off. It has to be tackled now, and it has to be dealt with once and for all.
The First Minister (Designate) said that there had to be a credible beginning to decommissioning. Some Ulster Unionist spokespersons equate the commitment to
"exclusively peaceful and democratic means"
to the beginning of decommissioning. They have accepted that, when IRA/Sinn Féin begin to decommission, they will be committed to "exclusively peaceful means". But it is about more than just beginning. It means the completion of decommissioning, giving up weapons in their entirety, the dismantling of terrorist organisations. I welcome the fact that there will be a united Unionist front on the motion. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made it clear time and time again that the IRA and Sinn Féin are inextricably linked, yet paragraph c of the motion says
"any party inextricably linked with a paramilitary organisation retaining arms cannot give a total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic means".
There has to be substantive and meaningful decommissioning, not a token gesture. However, I fear that we are being prepared for some sort of token gesture that will, in some way, allow movement.
The people of Northern Ireland, who have seen the release of over half the terrorist prisoners, who see the RUC under threat from paramilitary gangs whose organisations are still fully intact, are watching all these moves being made, and they will not be prepared to settle for some form of gesture. They want something substantial and meaningful which will show that people are divorcing themselves from violence and terrorist activity once and for all.
The DUP is happy to support the motion. I welcome the fact that the Unionist side will be presenting a united front and representing the clear demand from the people of Northern Ireland that the days of paramilitary organisations and those who believe in the use of force, be over. If they wish to reap the rewards of democracy, they must be fully committed to the means of democracy.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Is ionsaí oscailte ar Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta an rún a tháinig ón Uas McCartney. Tá an teachta ó Dhún Thuaidh ag iarraidh an chuma a chur ar an scéal go bhfuil sé ag iarraidh cúrsaí a bhogadh chun tosaigh. Act ní hamhlaidh an scéal ar chor ar bith.
Tá an tUas McCartney go hiomlán in éadan an Chomhaontaithe, go hiomlán in éadan an phacáiste ar vótáileadh ar a shon i Mí Bealtaine seo a chuaigh thart. Chomh luath agus a d’aontaigh na páirtithe ar phacáiste éigin agus fiú sula raibh reifreann ar an cheist, chuaigh an tUas McCartney agus a chuid comrádaithe gcionn le sraith cruinnithe a eagrú chun cur in aghaidh an Chomhaontaithe. Is cuid den fheachtas sin an rún atá os ár gcomhair inniu.
Cáineann an tUas McCartney Sinn Féin go láidir agus é ag moladh an rúin. Ach níl an rún seo dírithe ar pháirtí s’againn amháin. Tá sé dírithe in éadan na bpáirtithe uilig a tháinig le chéile chun dul chun cinn a dhéanamh trí chómhra agus comhréiteach.
Níl páirtí s’aige sásta beart a dhéanamh ar son na síochána ó thuaidh. A mhalairt ar fad – tá siad ag iarraidh bac a chur ar an ghluaiseacht i dtreo buansíochána agus comhoibrithe. Tá siad ag cur in aghaidh comhionnanais agus bunú institiúidí inar féidir linn uilig comhoibriú ar mhaithe lenár bpobal uile.
Is sa chomhthéacs sin a chaithfimid breathnú ar an rún seo. Is cuid lárnach de iarracht cheannaire an UKUP — ma tá páirtí fós aige — cúlú ón Chomhaontú agus ó obair páirtithe eile atá anseo le theacht ar réiteach fadtéarmach sa tír seo. Is cuid lárnach de throid s’aige in aghaidh an Chomhaontaithe é. Is dá thairbhe sin aiarraim ar Theachtaían eile den Tionóíl gan tacú leis an rún mar atá sé.
Tá sé riachtananch go leanfaimid ar aghaidh leis an obair chun na hinstitiúidí uilig a chur ar bun, an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin, na forais uile-Éireann agus na hinstitúidí thoir thiar. Sin an bealach is fearr le ré nua a thabhairt isteach sa tír seo.
Athníonn leasú s’againn an gá atá le tuairisc ón Chéad Aire (Ainnmithe) agus ón leasChéad Aire (Ainnmithe). sonnraíonn sé go soiléir sa Chomhaontú go mbeidh institiúidí ann "atá in ann údarás feidhmiúchain agus reachtach a fheidhmiú". Is léir go bhfuil Teachtaí éigin sa Tionól seo nach bhfuil sásta na céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh chun sin a chur i bhfeidhm, daoine arbh fhearr leo nach mbeadh aon dul chun cinn ann má tá comhoibiú, comhionnanas nó struchtúir chuimsitheacha ina bhfuil áit do gach duine mar chuid den dul chun cinn sin.
Ni féidir linn cúlú. caithfimid dul ar aghaidh. Caithfimid leanstan ar aghaidh leis an obair chun Cothrom na Féinne bhuní sna Sé Chontae. Is gá leanstan ar aghaidh le saoradh na gcimí, le bunú shéirbhis nua póilineachta agus le hathbhreithniú ar an chóras dlí. Caithfimid aontú anois ar na forais uile-Éireann agus ar na Ranna. Ba chóir go spreagfadh aontú ar na hábhair sin sinn uilig leis na céimeanna riachtanacha eile a ghlacadh — an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin agus an Chomhairle Aireachta uile-Éireann a chur ar bun agus fríd sin na comhlachtaí forfheidhmithe a bhunú. Ghlac formhór na bpáirtithe sa Tionól seo le Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta — caithfimid cloí leis anois.
Dá thairbhe sin iarraim oraibh tacú le leasú s’againne.
The motion before us today is an open attack on the Good Friday Agreement. The Member from North Down is trying to give the impression that he is attempting to move things on, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr McCartney is totally opposed to the agreement voted on last May. As soon as the parties came to an agreement, and even before the question was put to a referendum, he and his colleagues were out organising a series of public meetings to oppose it. This motion is part and parcel of that campaign.
MrMcCartney roundly criticised SinnFéin when moving the motion this morning. It is clear that the motion is not directed solely at Sinn Féin. On the contrary, the motion is directed against all the parties who came together to seek progress and to find accommodation through dialogue. He is not trying to seek peace in the Six Counties, he is trying to put obstacles in the way of an accommodation and of real and lasting peace. MrMcCartney’s supporters have set their faces against equality, parity of esteem and the establishment of institutions in which we can all work together for the good of all our people.
It is in this context that we need to examine the motion. It is part and parcel of the attempt by the Leader of the UK Unionist Party — that is, if he still has a party — to retreat from the Good Friday Agreement and from the work of other parties who wish to find a lasting settlement. This motion is part of his fight against the agreement and, for that reason, I ask Members not to support it as it stands.
It is essential that we work to put the institutions in place — the Executive, the all-Ireland bodies and the East-West dimension. That is the best way to bring about a new era for us all.
The Sinn Féin amendment recognises the need for a report from the First and the Deputy First Ministers. The agreement clearly states that institutions will be put in place which are "capable of exercising executive and legislative authority". But it is clear that some Members are not prepared to take the steps to see this through. That would entail co-operation, equality and inclusive structures in which there was a place for all.
We cannot turn back. We must go forward and continue the work to make equality a reality here in the Six Counties. We need to move forward with prisoner releases, with establishing a new police service and with a fundamental review of the justice system. We need agreement on all-Ireland bodies and the Departments now. Agreement on these matters should be a spur for us all to take the remaining steps to set up the Executive, the all-Ireland Ministerial Council and, through this, the implementation bodies. The majority of the parties supported the agreement and must stick to it now.
I ask the Assembly to support the amendment moved by MitchelMcLaughlin.

Mr Seamus Close: I would like to make it clear that the Alliance Party tabled its amendments because it is a strong supporter of the Good Friday Agreement and because it is concerned at the delay in the full implementation of that agreement. Our action should not be construed or interpreted as putting a spanner in the works. Unlike the mover of the original motion, the Alliance Party does not wish to bring the Good Friday Agreement down; unlike the DUP it does not wish to wreck people’s hopes; and unlike Union First it is not being destructive. Rather, it wishes to operate, be constructive and be positive in its demand that all those who have responsibility move forward.
When people went to the polls on 22May1998, they gave an overwhelming endorsement to the Good Friday Agreement. In our book, that was democracy. It was the voice of the people. That agreement was successfully negotiated by all those in the political parties who recognised that the only way to solve political disputes and differences was by negotiation and dialogue.
Yes, there are others who, recognising that their stance was unlikely to gain much support and having illustrated that they were either unwilling or unable to compromise, left the table. But in so doing, they exposed their weakness, their stubbornness and, yes, their intransigence.
It is important to note that the people have endorsed the agreement in full. They were asked a simple question:
"Do you support the agreement reached in the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?"
And the people said "Yes" — "Yes" to the parts they liked, and "Yes" to the parts with which they had difficulty. In so doing, they demonstrated their courage and hope for the future. They voted "Yes" to the Good Friday Agreement — not to the spins, not to the comments of others and not to other people’s handwritten notes.
People are not stupid. They knew what they were doing, and they recognised that the agreement pointed a way forward based on compromise. They knew that it offered hope for the future.
Having clearly and unambiguously voted "Yes" to the agreement, and having staked their claim and their future on that agreement, the people went to the polls once again and elected the Members of this Assembly. We are people whom they knew and some of whom they trusted to implement that agreement. They charged Members with putting in place the various parts of the agreement which they, the people, had endorsed.
The people wished to see the positions of FirstMinister and DeputyFirstMinister put in place, and that has been achieved. But what has happened to the Executive, the various Committees, the Civic Forum, the cross-border bodies, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council?
The people did not vote for procrastination, for a renegotiation of the agreement, or for childish stubbornness; they voted for political action which would see the agreement implemented fully. Yet six months on, the people can ask with justification "What has been done? Why have the posts of Ministers not been sorted out? Why is there no North/South Council? Where is the Civic Forum? Why are the old arguments and battles still being fought? Why is tribalism, as represented by Unionism and Nationalism, displaying the same old stubbornness as before?" And they ask "What has changed?"
The agreement’s Declaration of Support says
"We must never forget those who have died or who have been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust".
Is this empty rhetoric? And let Members note the following:
"We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement."
Is that, too, empty rhetoric?
Mutual trust is in very short supply; good faith appears to be an aspiration; and as for tolerance, surely that means self-restraint, mildness and moderation. Those qualities have certainly been absent in any recent interviews I have seen and from some of the comments made earlier.
People are concerned about these matters, and those charged with responsibility have a duty to deal with those concerns. But people’s expectations do not end with the list that I have just outlined. They also expect to see an end to the violence that has destroyed so many lives.
They believed that the fresh start for which they voted meant a permanent end to death, destruction, threat and intimidation by terrorists. Here too, I regret to say, the people have been disappointed.
The thugs and the gangsters are still using bullets; the hoods are still smashing skulls and bones; and the local mafia are still extorting money and controlling people in their neighbourhoods. The people want to break free. They want to live, work and play, free from stress and intimidation.
Again, the people pose the question "Was the Declaration of Support by all the participants to the agreement that they would oppose any use or threat of force just empty rhetoric?" They ask "Where is the evidence to suggest otherwise?" Is it not a fact that the retention of illegal guns and explosives, irrespective of whether they are used, constitutes a threat against this entire community? It strikes me that too many Members of the House have been rather muted in their expressions of opposition to this threat.
The agreement was strongly recommended to the people, and they responded in an emphatic manner. All Members should now keep their side of the bargain. If some do not, they could be seen as hypocrites.
Christmas — the season of goodwill — is approaching. As the momentous year of 1998 draws to a close and a new year dawns, I appeal to the First Minister (Designate) and to the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to do what is necessary, in the spirit of goodwill, to reinvigorate the hope that was offered on Good Friday.
Those Members who have influence with the paramilitaries should do what is necessary to have the threat that is represented by weapons and explosives removed. Give the people back their freedom and let them enter 1999 unburdened by the yoke of fear and intimidation.

Mr Patrick Roche: The pro-Union electorate in Northern Ireland is becoming increasingly aware of the extent to which the UUP negotiators conceded, given the terms of the Belfast Agreement, a form of government for Northern Ireland entirely incompatible with democratic practice and the rule of law.
The core point about the governance of NorthernIreland within the terms of the agreement is that the representatives of Republican terror can take seats in the Executive without the IRA’s ever decommissioning its terrorist arsenal. The position of the UUP negotiators, that the decommissioning of the terrorist arsenals is required by the section on decommissioning in the agreement and by the so-called Pledge of Office, is demonstrably false. The claims to the contrary made by the UUP negotiators mean that they are either trying to fool the pro-Union electorate or that they are so intellectually deficient that they do not understand the contents of the agreement they claim to have negotiated.
The fact that actual decommissioning of the terrorist arsenals is not required by the agreement does not invalidate the demands of the pro-Union parties in the Assembly — all of them, I hope.
This demand is based on the imperatives of democracy and the rule of law. They are non-negotiable in any civilised society, and that is the basis of the UKUP demand for decommissioning.
The UKUP is committed to the imperative of what should properly be regarded as the surrender of terrorist arsenals, even if that means bringing the Assembly down. Whether or not the Assembly collapses, in the event of Unionists holding the line on decommissioning, is dependent upon the SDLP. The choice for the SDLP is simple: either it retains the current alignment of the party with Republican terrorism or it commits the party to democratic practice by demanding that terrorists give up their arsenals as a necessary condition for the formation of the Executive.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the SDLP will commit itself to the imperatives of democracy, and the reason for that is very simple. The intellectual incoherence of Irish Nationalism is such that only someone devoid of common sense would give two moments’ consideration to what even MrHume’s supporters refer to as his "single transferable speech" were it not backed by the cutting edge of Republican terror.
MrHume’s commitment to the goal of a politically united Ireland, which he shares with the IRA, is such that, in the pursuit of this objective, he is prepared to give political respectability to SinnFéin — a party which is an electoral threat to the SDLP. On this issue he seems to be blindly followed — never a commendable practice in politics — by the other members of the SDLP.
The moment of truth has arrived for MrHume and the SDLP. They have now to choose between the demands of democracy and the rule of law or support for terrorism. It is beyond belief that any party that designated itself "democratic" would demand a system of government in which the architects of terror for 30years would govern the people they terrorised while retaining their terrorist arsenals, while their most experienced and ruthless operators were released from prison and while the RUC was destroyed within the terms of reference in the agreement which will dictate the content of the Patten Report. It is beyond belief that a supposedly democratic party such as the SDLP would support a system of government designed to meet every requirement of a terrorist organisation.
It beggars belief that the UUP negotiated such an agreement, but that is precisely what they did. It is obvious that the Leader of that party considered that what he had done was sufficiently worthy to merit his accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Members of the UUP who did not participate in the negotiations have a significant choice to make — one that will determine whether NorthernIreland remains within the Union. It is in their power to ensure that a system of government, corrupt in its very design of appeasing terrorists, is never imposed on the decent, law-abiding pro-Union community of NorthernIreland. When that historic vote is presented to them they must act against the core requirements of the agreement negotiated by their leaders and vote in the interests of democracy and the preservation of the Union.

Mr Peter Weir: In a rapidly changing political situation there were two statements this weekend which were depressingly familiar and depressingly predictable.
The first was made on behalf of a terrorist organisation which indicated that it was not willing to give up terror. It wanted to retain its weaponry and to be able to use force and violence.
The second was the response of Her Majesty’s Government which indicated that the terrorist organisation concerned posed no threat to peace. As the French would say, "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose." For those who do not have schoolboy French, that means "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
I enthusiastically welcome this motion, not only because I have always been a supporter of Unionist unity — and this is a motion behind which I hope all Unionists can unite — but also because it is one which all true democrats should support, irrespective of whether they are "Yes" voters or "No" voters, Unionists or Nationalists.
I speak not for Union First but for democracy first. Democracy should be about the power of language; it should be about the power of persuasion, the power of ideas, not the power of one’s weaponry. There is a need in any society for democracy to ensure that those in government are truly and irrevocably committed to exclusively peaceful means. That is one of democracy’s demands. The key test for any party — Unionist or Nationalist, Loyalist or Republican — before entering government is whether that party is truly committed to democracy and exclusively peaceful means. If it is not, then it should have no place in the Government of NorthernIreland; that is not just a matter of principle, it is one of practical politics.
If terrorist organisations and front parties are allowed into government while still retaining the capability of inflicting terror on society, then government has a gun to its head. Whenever the demands of terrorism are turned down — whether on reform of the RUC, North/South relations or the so-called equality agenda — the implied threat is "If we do not get what we want, we will go back to doing what we do best." That must be remembered. Decommissioning is not intended to humiliate any particular organisation, but it is a key element of the test to establish whether an organisation is truly committed to a democratic and peaceful way forward.
This has two implications. First, as the Member for North Belfast (MrDodds) has said, it is not sufficient for there to be only a start made on decommissioning. At the very least, substantial and ongoing decommissioning is needed before people can be considered as democrats. An IRA at 99% or 95% of its efficiency would pose as big a threat to democracy as it does at present. The splinter group which caused the Omagh bomb was not a vast organisation with a huge amount of weaponry, but look at the level of destruction it achieved. Token decommissioning is not enough — at the very least it must be substantial and ongoing.
We are about one third of the way through the two-year process, so, at the very least, the IRA should be giving up one third of its weaponry. That is not too much to ask as a start. Or, as more than half of the prisoners have been released, perhaps the figure could be one half.
Secondly, while decommissioning is a step on the path to democracy, it is not a sufficient step. There are other ways in which the Republican movement and the Loyalists remain committed to a terrorist path. There has not been a declaration that the war is over. There was a statement from the Leader of Sinn Féin in the summer containing a vague aspiration that peace would be the way forward, but there has not been any statement from the IRA declaring an end to its war. We need to see that. We need to see an end to punishment beatings — these vile attacks carried out by paramilitaries so that they can control areas. Such activities are incompatible with being part of a democratic government. We need to see an end to criminal activity; we need to see the paramilitary organisations get off people’s backs; we need to see a start being made to disbanding the terrorist organisations. Why do we need armies in waiting if these people are committed to peace? Finally, we need to see a return of the bodies of the disappeared.
It is clear that an organisation which retains its weaponry is not a suitable candidate for government. Equally, a Government Minister, backed up by a private army, or a private police force or a private mafia, should not be permitted within a democratic society. Much movement is therefore required before any of the organisations can qualify as democrats, let alone be worthy to be in the Government of NorthernIreland.
I remain very sceptical about whether Sinn Féin/IRA, the organisation most likely to aspire to a place in Government, will make that transition.
In these circumstances, responsibility rests with Her Majesty’s Government and with the SDLP. It is time that MrBlair honoured the pledges which he gave to the people of NorthernIreland. We can move on without SinnFéin to ensure that those who are not committed to a peaceful way forward are excluded from Government. There should also be an end to the release of prisoners while there is no decommissioning.
There is an onus on the SDLP to join with the other democrats in the House and leave behind those who have not abandoned terrorism. The only way forward is for democrats to work together, and that is the only solution acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland.
I support the motion enthusiastically.

Mr Denis Haughey: It takes a fairly spectacular kind of brass neck to accuse the SDLP, as MrRoche of the UKUP did, of incoherence, given the events of the last 48hours.
Those who believed that what we were engaged in was a tidy, predictable process governed by timetables and rules and observing strict procedures seem to understand little about politics, or about human nature. We live in an extremely volatile community — a conflict-ridden mess. To a greater or lesser extent, all of us have contributed to that mess, either through what we have said, or not said, either through what we have done, or not done, or through the attitudes that we have adopted. I am amazed that there are people who seem to believe that, somewhere in the firmament, there are vast, immutable truths and principles of which they, alone, are the guardians. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that debate, arguments and conflict on these matters have been part of human experience since the earliest times.
This process is as imperfect as the people who are involved in it, and, indeed, as imperfect as those who are not involved in it. It is as imperfect as any political process. Even so, we have made a great deal of progress. There are people in the House today who, a relatively short time ago, took the view that politics was futile and that the only way to solve the problems of this society was through the use of force. The political organisations associated with that attitude have now renounced it and are involved in the political process. I call that progress.
There are few people in the House who will not be able to recall, as I can, the occasions in the past when our telephones would ring in the early hours of the morning, and we knew that we were going to get the news that someone had been killed. We would always pray that the violence would not be that bad, that it would not have caused someone’s death, but we remember the many occasions when the violence did cause fatalities, sometimes multiple fatalities. Let us be thankful that those days are gone.
That is not to say that there are no violent deaths or no violence in this society. Anyone who thought there would be a sudden end to a conflict which had lasted for centuries was either foolish or tragic. Conflict has declined, and our collective responsibility is to try to reduce it further, and to find ways and means of co-operating with each other to advance the interests of the electorate. We have a collective responsibility to make the agreement work. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people on this island want us to do that. The result of the referendum is evidence of that. The electorate does not want us to engage in some of the cruel slagging, sniggering and jeering that occasionally goes on in the House.
While this process, like any other political process, is flawed and untidy, with ragged edges, our job is to make it work. If we are to do so, a certain amount of forward movement is necessary. We always found that when politicians do not give a lead, the political vacuum is filled with violence, and we are coming close to the end of the time that is available for producing the necessary forward movement.
My Colleague Seamus Mallon, the Deputy First Minister (Designate) said this morning that we cannot stand still because that would damage the political process. Since April, we have stood still in political terms, and have taken great risks with the integrity of the political process in which we are involved.
I understand to some extent the impatience which led to the motion and the amendments. We are impatient too. We want forward movement. We have tried repeatedly and consistently in recent weeks to produce such momentum, and we will continue trying until we reach agreement. But it should be obvious that agreement is possible only if both sides are prepared to shift their positions, to be flexible and to seek accommodation — and not to stick to rigid party positions. It should be obvious that pronouncements such as "This is our bottom line; we can go no further" and refusing to examine alternatives, are not the way to get agreement.
We must begin work on the North/South bodies and the Executive structures, and begin to tackle day-to-day issues relating to the Health Service, and our schools, which is what we were elected to do.

Rev William McCrea: I welcome the opportunity to speak in a forthright debate which is very relevant to our country at present.
My party recalled the Assembly to debate the pigs issue. We could have had a full day’s debate then on general agricultural issues, but when we sought the agreement of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Féin in the relevant Committee, we were blocked because those parties did not see that as relevant to their progress.
Today’s debate is an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. The motion notes
"a. no proposals have yet been made under paragraph 16 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement have yet been made,
b. actions since are set out in paragraph 8 of strand two of the Belfast Agreement have not been achieved".
I will come to paragraph c later.
I have listened to the debate so far and have noted some of the remarks that have been made. The Member for Lagan Valley (MrClose) said that the people voted for the Belfast Agreement. The majority of those people did not know about the 440amendments that would be made to that Bill. How can anyone say that this is what the people voted for, when even the Government did not know what it was suggesting?
I say to Mr Close and to this House that while there are those who boast about their "Yes" position, I am proud to say that I went to the people of Ulster with a "No" position. When I see terrorists walking the street, and when I see the RUC being dismantled, I thank God that my finger was not in that pie. I was not a part of that treachery, and I was not a part of the betrayal of those people. My Colleagues and I were commissioned to oppose that act of treachery, and we are doing exactly that. No one need be surprised that we have honoured our election pledges while so many others have failed to fulfil theirs.
Several Members have expressed their frustration. MrHaughey and MrMallon were quite open about that. MrMallon cannot wait to get his hands on power. He cannot wait to get himself and his Colleagues in Sinn Féin into positions of power. The Member for East Londonderry said that he had been waiting for this since 1974. Between 1974 and 1998 we have had a blood-curdling, murderous attack on the law-abiding people of this country. MrHaughey talked about waiting for the telephone call. Many of us in the Unionist community know exactly what it is like to wait for the telephone call, wondering whether relatives have been murdered. Many attempts were made to murder our relatives over those years.
Let us not pretend that nothing has been happening. Much has happened since the signing of the agreement. The Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster warned us that if his political strategy did not work, he and his colleagues would go back to what they know best, meaning of course the Armalite. It was a former member of that party from the same constituency who said that the strategy of Sinn Féin was "The Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other". We know the background of the Sinn Féin Members.
We have been lectured about a new beginning and told that we are enjoying the fruits of peace. What kind of peace are we enjoying? In this morning’s newspaper there is an article entitled "The toll of Ulster’s young victims". Here are the fruits of peace. More than 1,000 Ulster children have been murdered, beaten, intimidated or exiled by terrorists this year, according to Families Against Intimidation and Terror. Those are the fruits of peace. We have heard that in November alone there were 420recorded terrorist incidents. Nine people were exiled, 67 intimidated, two shootings and seven beatings were carried out, and so forth. That is the kind of peace that we are talking about. This is the fruit of the hard labour of the Belfast Agreement, and it does not end there.
Terrorists are walking the streets, snubbing their noses at those who have been murdered. In the very meetings which have been discussing the disbandment of the police, the murderers were laughing at the widows of their victims. I make no apology for describing the terrorists who do that as being no better than scum, and they have no part to play in the future of this Province. We have to defeat the terrorists in our midst, but under this agreement the terrorists have been released.
We had a lecture about equality. It is amazing how some Sinn Féin members have the gall to talk about equality. One might have expected that after the release of 214 terrorists half of the guns and explosives would be handed over, but that is not in the equation.
IRA/Sinn Féin sit there smugly. They may fool some people (those who think that they should be brought into government), but so far as the DUP is concerned, IRA/Sinn Féin represent a group of people that needs to be defeated — not cuddled up to, not appeased, and not allowed to become part of any Administration. The DUP will not be aiding or abetting any agreement that puts IRA/Sinn Féin into any future Government of this country.
On 5 December a demonstration — with full paramilitary regalia — was held in Dungannon in support of disbanding the RUC. Some people who took part in the parade wore full combat uniform and boots, and the ordinary people of Dungannon were subjected to verbal abuse. That is the kind of treatment we are being asked to accept in this country. Such is the fruit of a peace process. We are being subjected to mafia-type threats, extortion and drug-related incidents. Orangemen are still at Drumcree, but this rabble is allowed to walk the streets of Dungannon and abuse the people who live there. The number of troops has been reduced, routine military patrols have ceased, and so on.
IRA/Sinn Féin have no intention of disarming. Their present strategy in the political arena will take them so far, but when it can take them no further they will go back to doing what they do best. We have stood against all their threats and intimidation for the past 30 years. We have never knuckled under them, and, by the grace of God, we never will. We will see them defeated.
The lecture we had about there being no link between the IRA and Sinn Féin was very interesting. MartinMcGuinness was convicted of IRA membership in 1974 and was jailed for 12months in the Republic of Ireland. He told the court there that he was very proud to be an IRA commander in Londonderry.
What about Kelly? In 1973 he was convicted of IRA membership and of inciting others to join. What about GerryKelly? He masterminded the IRA’s Old Bailey bombing.

Dr Joe Hendron: On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. Is it in order for one Member to refer to another by his surname, as has just happened?

Lord Alderdice: It would be proper to refer to a Member by his Christian name and surname, particularly where there could be any confusion. Members ought to pay attention to proprieties.

Rev William McCrea: What about GerryKelly? Yes, we heard the litany when they were trying to tell us that there was no connection, that they were not a part of IRA/Sinn Féin, that there is no such thing as IRA/Sinn Féin. Whom do they think they are fooling? So far as we are concerned, and so far as the Government are concerned, they are two sides of the same coin — GerryAdams and all the rest of them. I could go on, taking them one by one.
There is a challenge to the DUP to galvanise the pro-Union opposition to the current policy of treachery. There is a challenge to Ulster Unionists: will they let Sinn Féin into government? There is a challenge to the SDLP: will they go on without their Sinn Féin? There is a challenge to the Government: now is the time to stop appeasing terrorism and defeat it.

Mr Boyd Douglas: MrTrimble is on record as saying that, to make the Assembly work, it is essential that all participants be committed to peaceful and non-violent means. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that legislation will be introduced to deal with prisoner issues and with parties that are linked to paramilitary organisations. MrTrimble also said that the UUP would hold MrBlair to his promises, and would not sit in the Government of NorthernIreland with unreconstructed terrorists. He also said that this issue must be comprehensively addressed to our satisfaction. Paramilitary organisations must decide that the war is over, dismantle, disarm and stop the beatings.
Since the so-called ceasefire, there have been 450 beatings and murders. IRA/SinnFéin have so far refused to disarm or to endorse the exclusively peaceful and democratic measures laid down in the Mitchell principles. For those of us who opposed the Belfast Agreement, it was no surprise when IRA/SinnFéin said at the weekend that they would not give up a single bullet or one ounce of Semtex.
Neither was it a surprise when we heard that the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Women’s Coalition are still in talks with Republican and Loyalist murderers. As we know, they have broken their promises to the electorate many times before.
Loyalists were bought off by the Government when they were promised that prisoners would be released. The Government have also been bought off by IRA/SinnFéin with the release of many savage murderers; the promise of ministerial positions in the New Assembly; the promise that many border checkpoints and posts would be removed and that all-Ireland bodies with executive powers would be set up; the promise that the Loyal Orders would be constrained by the Parades Commission; and the promise that the RUC would be reformed.
In return for those promises, IRA/SinnFéin declared a ceasefire — such as it is — and told the Government that there would be no more bombs on the mainland, provided their requests are granted. Otherwise, they will do as they have done in the past — blow another town to pieces or murder a few more members of the security forces.
It is unbelievable that some Members who call themselves Unionists are prepared to go down the road of this corrupt process. It is also difficult to understand why those in the SDLP who call themselves democrats are prepared to support cohorts who have been responsible for many dire atrocities. It is also difficult to understand why they have not, at any time, used their position to encourage decommissioning. I suppose it is because their ultimate goal is the same, and they are prepared to accept anything to further their aim.
It is time for the Assembly to insist on decommissioning. Unreconstructed terrorists should not be in Government.
There has recently been much use of the word "equality". As British citizens, we demand equality of treatment, and reject this façade with the enemies of Northern Ireland. I support the motion.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The theme of the speeches by MrNeeson, MrHaughey and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) was that people are despairing because we are not reaching agreement quickly enough. It is better to take a little longer over the agreement and get it right than to rush it and get it wrong. It is as simple as that.
Where I live is part of the United Kingdom. Scotland had its referendum many months before ours; we had ours in May. If or when, and I believe it will be when, we move to full devolution next May, we will still be doing that ahead of Scotland. So we are moving at a reasonably rapid pace in comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom, and we have been having these discussions and debates against a backcloth of 30years of violence which neither Scotland, nor Wales has had. That may be the pragmatic way of putting it, but the party I represent also reflects the agreement in full.
I note from the motion that paragraph 16 of strand one refers to Ministers and then, following that, to the Executive. The word "follow" does not imply immediacy, but the word "after" is implied. No one has so far referred this morning to paragraph 35 of strand one of the agreement, and it is the heading of that paragraph that indicates the mode that we are in at the moment — the transition mode. Under the heading "Transitional Arrangements" paragraph 35 talks about Standing Orders (which we are working on), about working practices and about preparations for the effective functioning of the Assembly. That is what we are about. Let us get it right, even if it takes a little longer, rather than rush and get it wrong. That is my first point.
Sinn Féin representative MitchelMcLaughlin said
"There is no such party as Sinn Féin/IRA."
Others have referred to that remark, and very vocally from my right. I do not intend to be as vocal or as strident, but this motion does not refer to one party — Sinn Féin/IRA — it refers to inextricable linkages. I have said this before and now I will say it again: a man and a woman are two separate individuals, but when they are married they become inextricably linked. It is to such an inextricable linkage that we are referring.
He also said "Why fear peace?" [Interruption] I trust that the Member is also inextricably linked, if he is married.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Maybe, Mr Nesbitt —

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: It is all right. I am glad that the Member is talking to me again.
MitchelMcLaughlin asked why we should fear peace. I do not fear peace. Indeed, I wish for peace. But what we have at the moment is not peace. We have the absence of the violence of the ‘70s; we have a mere ceasefire. I remind Sinn Féin that ‘The Irish Times’— not I — said quite rightly that there is an obligation on the part of Sinn Féin to deliver its part of the bargain. FergusFinlay, the mentor of the Tánaiste, DickSpring, when he was in that position, also said the same at that time.
The ‘Belfast Telegraph’ used two words which are very salutary for us all with reference to the IRA. The editorial said that it was a "threat undiminished". A threat undiminished does not give us a peaceful environment. I wish for peace; I do not fear it.
I say to Members opposite, and to Sinn Féin in particular, that I do not fear equality. However, equality is not what Sinn Féin may wish it to be. The 40 nations of the Council of Europe have defined quality. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin said that we, as individuals, cannot pick and choose but must reflect the international consensus regarding matters of state. This refers to equality as "participation within the state".
Those in a state who wish to be linked to another one cannot interfere with territorial integrity and sovereignty. That cannot be said of Sinn Féin or of its equality agenda. A fundamental principle of international law and practice is that the territorial integrity of states is recognised and that co-operation is built from within a state. That principle is not being recognised.
Sinn Féin says that the agreement is merely transitory, a staging post. Others say "We must go much further."
Addressing Ulster Unionists in the Assembly, MrRoche used the term "intellectually deficient". While I support the motion, I do have one problem with it that MrRoche may be able to help me with. The motion says
"any party inextricably linked with a paramilitary organisation retaining arms cannot give a total and absolute commitment".
Does that not mean decommissioning? MrRoche said that the surrender of terrorist arsenals is imperative. I am trying to get my intellectual coherence right.

A Member: Keep trying. Take your time.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I shall. I have the floor. I cannot get my mind round what appears to be logical but is illogical. When the Leader of MrRoche’s party —

A Member: Which party?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Let us not delve into that. They have had a hard enough week.
Mr Roche talks about decommissioning, but MrMcCartney wrote in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on 1May1998
"Denial of equal recognition with democrats to parties fronting armed terrorists until such parties publicly and permanently reject violence and openly and positively disassociate themselves from terrorist organisations".
That looks as if all that has to be done is to permanently renounce violence and disassociate themselves from those organisations.

Lord Alderdice: Please bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: That has nothing to do with decommissioning.

Mr Patrick Roche: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I know that if I give way Mr Roche will not say "Yes" or "No", so I will let him reflect on it.

Lord Alderdice: It is not possible for you to give way as your time is up.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: That is why I left the point to the end. I leave MrRoche to reflect on what is an "intellectually incoherent" UKUP position.

Mr Mark Durkan: This has been a useful debate. When the possibility for such a debate was discussed some weeks ago many parties favoured an opportunity to air and share views and concerns about the formation of government departments, North/South co-operation and implementation bodies, the British-Irish Council and the consultative Civic Forum. It was those four areas which, on 1July, the Assembly asked the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) to consider.
I pointed out on 1 July, when speaking in support of the nominations of MrTrimble and MrMallon, that the issue of decommissioning does not relate to any of the functions or responsibilities of the First Minister (Designate) or Deputy First Minister (Designate). This also applies to the issues of prisoner releases and the Police Commission. The responsibility of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) is to lead Members on those aspects of the agreement which fall to the Assembly, either through the Assembly itself or by agreed mechanisms for relationships within the British/Irish or North/South framework.
The Deputy First Minister (Designate) has spoken of his frustrations that he and the First Minister (Designate) have not yet been able to discharge those responsibilities. They will still not be able to discharge their responsibilities if Members leave today thinking that we can still keep kicking all those issues in front of us. We cannot continue to do that.
The vexed question of decommissioning cannot be resolved this week. Parties have different stances on and interpretations of that issue. Members may feel that one party or another is misguided in its interpretation either of the issue or of the agreement. The Assembly can stop the issue of decommissioning being a deadlock by agreeing the new government departments, the initial tranche of North/South implementation bodies and areas for North/South co-operation, so enabling the necessary legislation and personnel arrangements to be put in place.
Over the last few weeks we have been trying to make progress — at least in those areas which will take time to develop further — without becoming caught up in a rhetorical shoot-out over decommissioning. Unfortunately, this debate has tended to be more about decommissioning than the issues which should have been before the Assembly — proposals and suggestions on new government departments, the initial areas for North/South co-operation and implementation bodies, the consultative Civic Forum and the Assembly’s contribution to the British-Irish Council. That still has to be done.
Mr Nesbitt said that although the referendum in Scotland was held prior to the referendum in NorthernIreland less progress has been made there. Scotland has not yet elected its Parliament and does not have the salaries, allowances and running costs to pay. The Scottish people would be pretty angry if their elected Parliament could not sort out its government departments or determine its relationships with other bodies after six months. The comparison does not stand up. The context is different.

A Member: There are no gunmen walking the streets.

Mr Mark Durkan: That is another reason for us to be more diligent and act more urgently here. The situation I have outlined is not the only difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland. Political inertia is less affordable in Northern Ireland. One of my fears about the Forum was that it would be a case of salaried intransigence. We seem to be in a form of salaried inertia and more urgency is required.
Some deadlines were in the agreement. The deadline of 31October was there with regard to the North/South bodies and the North/South work programme. That deadline assumed that Government Departments would be organised and formed and that a shadow Executive would be up and running some time before that. That was the presumption at the time of the agreement, and it was there because that was the Ulster Unionists’ negotiating position in the talks. They told us that they could not agree North/South bodies in the negotiations, that these had to be worked out as part of the working of the new arrangements. They said that the new Departments had to be up and running with shadow Ministers in place, reporting to the Assembly on the areas which had been agreed with the Irish Government.
That is the way the Ulster Unionists said it had to happen, but they have reversed their negotiating position. Before they engage in any further discussion on new Government Departments in Northern Ireland, they want to sort out and limit the North/South bodies. DavidTrimble, quite rightly, talks about the importance of consistency and clarity in other places. I would ask him, and his party, for the same approach in the Assembly.
Today UUP Members have lectured the SDLP on its responsibilities in the current situation and have expressed disappointment about what they perceive as a lack of support for their position in some matters. I am dismayed that there seems to be a change in their position. If this Assembly is to have any credibility, we must make progress on these issues. The public should have the confidence that their will will prevail and that the whole thing will not disintegrate when the parties push their own mandates.
In order for the agreement to work, we must make arrangements for the new Departments and for the North/South bodies. The agreement also has to work in all other aspects and, whether people like it or not, that includes prisoner releases. No one can make preconditions. Whether we like it or not, the work of the Independent Commission on Policing will be part of the success of this agreement. There must also be real progress on decommissioning.
MitchelMcLaughlin said that SinnFéin wants to see the gun removed. Other people who have put the case for decommissioning want to see the gun removed, but it has to be something that is visible. SinnFéin, in its own terms and in its own time, has always insisted that it does not want anything implicit or anything under the table. Everything has to be upfront, visible and obvious — something that it could take to its constituency. That was the case during the negotiations with regard to prisoner releases, the need for movement on policing and a variety of other issues. It said that these were not negative demands to get what it could from the first "takings" of the agreement, rather it was to enable Sinn Féin to go to the constituency and assure people that there was something real for them in this agreement.
The same case can be made for disarmament. We should not hear it continually dismissed as a red herring. The more it is dismissed, the more people become preoccupied with the issue. Let us all move on and help each other. The First and Deputy First Ministers should be able to put forward some practical proposals without the matter being confused or complicated by other party issues.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The subject of today’s debate is clear. Do we hand to Sinn Féin the Christmas box of a place in the Government of Northern Ireland while it retains its guns or do we, as democrats, deny it that place until it proves that it has the same democratic credentials as the rest of the parties in this Chamber?
The debate has to focus on Sinn Féin. No matter whether one looks at its members’ statements, at the constitution of the terrorist organisation which it represents, or at the connections of its Assembly Members, there is no mistaking the fact that the full spectrum of terrorist activity is represented in the form of IRA/Sinn Féin in this Chamber. Whether one speaks about bombings, extortion, the organising of mass murder in this city, or any other line of terrorist activity, we will find in that party someone who not only epitomises the type of person who is engaged in one of those activities, but a person who has engaged in one of them. Should we allow such people into the Government of Northern Ireland?
It is worth focussing Members’ attention on these pertinent matters, and I want to look at some of the arguments of the parties who oppose MrMcCartney’s motion.
I was slightly perturbed to hear the First Minister (Designate) say "Let us not forget that it is not just the electoral mandate which entitles people to a place in the Government; it is also the fact that they are committed to democratic and peaceful means." I hope that is not the loophole that he intends to use to push matters forward, as others are exhorting him to do.
I have been on Belfast City Council since 1989 when legislation was introduced requiring members of all parties to sign an agreement saying that they were committed to democratic and peaceful means. I have since seen Sinn Féin members get elected and sign that agreement, and then in the council chamber defend the economic warfare to which Belfast has been submitted by the IRA. I have heard them defend the so-called punishment beatings or refuse to condemn them after signing a bit of paper by which they are regarded as democrats.
Let us look at some of the other Members’ contributions. As I listened to MrNeeson I was reminded of a comment by someone in another place, who said that if he intended to divorce his wife, he would hire one of the young lawyers in the Alliance Party to represent her. I thought for one moment that the famed open-mindedness of the Alliance Party was beginning to bear fruit when MrNeeson said, in his strongest voice, that 1,000children had suffered from human rights abuses, and that that was unacceptable. He went on to say that the Mitchell principles had been diluted so that a coach and horses could be driven through them.
In much more colourful language, his Colleague described how people’s bones were being broken and money was being extorted. At this stage I thought that this was a fiendish plot, that the Alliance Party was going to back MrMcCartney’s motion. But, having said all that, they came to what conclusion? By 21December the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) should bring a final report before the Assembly. The implication of that conclusion is that it sets in train the process which will allow the very people who are breaking bones, extorting money and engaging in human rights abuses, to occupy positions in the Government of Northern Ireland. It is not a case of sitting on the fence — they are becoming the fence.
We then heard Sinn Féin’s arguments. MrMcLaughlin told us that Sinn Féin and the IRA have nothing to do with each other — and we all believe that. [Laughter] He went on to explain why that is so. He said that Sinn Féin does not believe in or support punishment beatings. Such a claim is a bit odd. I have been in a council chamber when Sinn Féin opposed a motion condemning punishment beatings. But Sinn Féin — the master of words — gets round that. It gets round it by referring to such incidents as community corrections — not punishment beatings.
Then we were told that Sinn Féin wants to see the gun removed forever. MrMcFarland quoted GerryKelly, who, of course, does not speak for the IRA. They are not inextricably linked — in fact, they have nothing to do with each other. Gerry Kelly said that if Unionists keep on talking about getting rid of guns the IRA will go back on the streets.
But Sinn Féin’s most conclusive argument is that nowhere in its election literature or its constitution is there a claim that it speaks for the IRA. Of course, Sinn Féin would not include that in its election literature. Why would it? And by using all of these arguments, Sinn Féin expects us to believe that its members are house-trained democrats who are fit to fill places in government. So far as the Democratic Unionist Party is concerned, Sinn Féiners are not fit to come through the doors of this Chamber, let alone take places in government. And it does not really matter how people try to paint them.
The same theme of support has been running through all of the SDLP’s submissions. You cannot go back; you must go forward. You cannot be a wrecker; you must be constructive. You cannot be negative; you must be positive. So if you do not agree to let Sinn Féin in to government, you are the wrecker.
Let me remind Sinn Féin Members that those of us on this side of the Chamber have not spent the last 30years trying to prove that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity. We were not the ones who boycotted institutions from the 1982 Assembly onwards. We were not the ones who, when things were not going our way, decided to run down to Dublin to try to muster support for an unreasonable point of view. We want to see Northern Ireland working. But politics in Northern Ireland cannot work if one adopts the immoral stance of putting those who have wrecked this country in to its Government.
The choice before the House is simple. It can either support MrMcCartney’s motion, which emphasises that only democrats have a place in government, or it can surrender to those who insist on retaining their guns because they know that their demands are so unreasonable that the only levers available to them are Semtex and the gun.

Mr David Ervine: Ulster Unionists should be careful about the motion. Paragraph c does not contain an opportunity for tokenism, and the Ulster Unionist Leader’s speech in Oslo undoubtedly introduced the possibility of tokenism. MrWeir diminished any possibility of tokenism, and went on to say that one third of the arms would do. Any terrorist organisation with two thirds of its arms intact could inflict a serious blow. Those were MrWeir’s words, and Hansard will clarify the matter.
If tokenism is what people are about, they will be boxed in. Tokenism is a joke because people who are left with a small number of guns could operate a policy of work study and use the guns more often by passing them around. MrWeir spoke about his penchant for Unionist unity. Those who advocated tokenism should carefully read the wording of pargraph c. It does not advocate tokenism. It wants absolute, total, complete and utter decommissioning. I hope that we all want that.
The many facets of the agreement were played out in living colour. Few, if any, of them were universally loved. Its creation was a great surprise to a vast swath of the population whose doubts about the matter probably had their foundation in a belief that their politicians were unwilling or incapable of doing what needed to be done.
The run-up to the referendum was a difficult time for those in the Unionist tradition. However, the moral imperatives which drove opinion have been passed into law by the greater number of people. Issues that were so disliked are to the fore, and that will continue. What do we do now? Do those who have a specific difficulty with the agreement continue to harbour annoyance, or do they accept the will of the people and embrace the only real chance that this society has to practise accountable democracy?
It is foolish to dismiss the extent to which emotion plays a part in our political life. But to be consumed by emotion when trying to chart a course to the future is likely to end in disaster. As things stand, that is how it will end. We are told that Trimble and Adams cannot move. If that is the case, this process will go down, and that would please some people. Some SinnFéin hearts may harbour the notion that that would not be a bad idea, provided the daft oul Prods get the blame for it.
I heard two inane comments when I was in the talks. One was the assertion that SinnFéin does not represent the IRA, which prompted me to say at the time that we should get the IRA in because it was the people in that organisation with whom we had to deal.
The other remark was made by MrMcCartney. It was similar to things he said this morning in giving a litany of immorality in relation to punishment beatings and shootings. This morning, however, he left out the caveat "If this is peace, give me war." And I have plenty of witnesses.

Mr Robert McCartney: I am sure they are of good character.

Mr David Ervine: Absolutely, and a couple in his own party perhaps.
Another issue that I should mention to the exalted Gentleman is that at least four others now realise that they cannot tell anything to the man who knows everything. It is that time of year — Christmas.
Perhaps this is the right time to encourage people to examine why paramilitary ceasefires were called in the first place. Were the ceasefires not some form of acceptance by the paramilitarists that the war was futile, that it is was unwinnable? But being in a war that is unwinnable is not the same as being defeated. There are those who have no concept of the difficulties that we have been going through. We know about the pain, the blood and the brains on the pavements; we know about news programmes by the day; we know about the suffering before, during and after the ceasefires. We know about all that, but we do not seem to have a formula or any policy that can cross the religious and political divide and give the people an opportunity to believe that there is a way out or a light at the end of the tunnel.
Those Members who have listened to me suggesting that we are heading for disaster may be pleased, but let me point out a couple of salient political facts — even though I am only an amateur. There is a British Prime Minister who is probably in the worst position that any British Prime Minister has been in in relation to NorthernIreland. This is not because there is not as much violence to deal with; it is because 71·12% of the population of NorthernIreland copper-fastened an agreement that is in danger of collapsing. What happens if Nationalism is able to pin that on Unionism?
As MrMcCartney advocates, as MrRoche advocates, as the DUP advocates, there is no start date for decommissioning in the agreement. The question is therefore this; when does one resign from a deal, from a contract and from a covenant? That question will be asked of Unionism. It is also a question that the British Prime Minister will be asked about when Nationalism raps at the door of DowningStreet and says this: "We know, PrimeMinister, that it is difficult to manage a divided society, but it is worse than that. Our democratic rights have been denied by those who sat outside CastleBuildings, sharpened the knives, ran away from the problem, refused to deal with it and waited for the suckers to come out, waited for the people who have risked life and everything else to try to create an opportunity for a better way forward for the people of NorthernIreland."
In a couple of years’ time when the Prime Minister has deliberated with BertieAhern and thought about what he might do to give Nationalism its political expression — as the Good Friday Agreement, copper-fastened by 71·12% of the people, was supposed to do — does anybody think that the next thing to come will be a Unionist agenda? Are Members sure it will be a Unionist agenda or are they happy enough just to sing ‘TheSash’ and think loudly that everything will be all right? It will not be. If the deal is not done and honoured, the consequences will be very difficult. People have said that SinnFéin and the IRA will not win. I have said that all my adult life. There are young, and not so young, people in the community who will take that literally. When they find that it is not a Unionist agenda and that Unionism has no part of the agenda that follows the collapse of the Good Friday Agreement, we will be in bloody awful turmoil. I know who I will blame. I will not support MrMcCartney’s motion.

Prof Monica McWilliams: This has been a rather depressing debate, full of certainties from some Members. If, as he claims, RevWilliamMcCrea is not treacherous, it makes the rest of us extremely treacherous. MrWeir, who seemed to be making up his speech as he went along, told us that Union First wants the decommissioning of one third of the IRA’s arms. No doubt, next time we return to the Chamber, it will be two thirds. MrMcGimpsey told us that some parties are here because they have nowhere else to go. I remind him that, as well as the DUP, to whom he addressed his remarks, there are other parties here who have nowhere else to go. That may not be the best reason for us being here, but I agree with MrDurkan, who said that subsidised inaction has gone on for too long. We are here to do business, and it is time that we got on with it.
Mr Nesbitt does not know much about marriage if he thinks that husbands and wives are always inextricably linked. They act independently, and if he knew anything about women’s rights he would know that that is what women seek when building partnerships — agreement to live with differences through thick and thin. MrSammyWilson knows even less about divorce if he thinks that the husband gets to pick his wife’s lawyer.
Certainty after certainty have been repeated. Change creates uncertainty, and that is difficult. But I would rather have the uncertainties of today than the violence and mayhem of the past. We went into the agreement with some speed, but it was right to do that, try to avoid creating a vacuum which would create tension, such as we find in the Chamber. The only certainty now is that in May 71% of the people told us to make the agreement work. That does not ignore the fact, which was mentioned by the First Minister (Designate) in Oslo, that there is a cultural conflict between Nationalism and Unionism. It is true that Nationalism often deals in aspirations, but it is unfair to say that it always deals in aspirations, and not with realities. I have seen Nationalism combine both.
It is equally unfair to Unionism to say that it deals only with basic issues and not with wider aspirations. The agreement brought those two sides together, and taught us how to compromise. Members will realise that we would not have an agreement if one side had gained 100% of its objectives. It is, of course, easy for MrWilson to use absolutes to demonise people, but people such as MrsdeBrún, a member of Sinn Féin, are here to work. MrWilson should bear that in mind, as should those members of his party who will attend the meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. They should head not simply for the door, as they would like to do, but up the stairs, where the work is being done. They should not just stand there, acting out a political charade for the benefit of the television cameras. We will go on working.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I would not go upstairs with you at any time.

Prof Monica McWilliams: MrWilson knows little about sexual relationships, and he ought not to lecture people about where in this building they should go.

Mr John Kelly: A Chathaoirligh, that remark should be withdrawn.

Lord Alderdice: Order. Two Members should not be on their feet at the same time. I heard an intervention which was neither a point of order nor a point of information. It may not be on the record.

Prof Monica McWilliams: For the record, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I shall repeat the cheap, scurrilous jibe made by MrWilson. He said that he would not go upstairs with me at any time. Ha, ha, ha.

Lord Alderdice: It will certainly now be on the record.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Apart from MrWilson, no one is laughing.

Mr David Ford: Mr Presiding Officer, will you please examine the record of this debate and rule on the propriety of the language?

Lord Alderdice: I shall certainly do that, as I do in the case of every Assembly debate.

Prof Monica McWilliams: We have not spent as much time as we should on other issues. We have concentrated on decommissioning and the politics of ultimatums. Perhaps one day we will have a healthy debate with MrWilson about the inclusion of more women in decision-making in NorthernIreland politics, which is in the agreement, or on community development as a strategic approach to resolving our problems.
Hour after hour, we have heard about wonderful solutions to our criminal justice problems. MrWeir, an Ulster Unionist Back-Bencher, said that he wanted all criminal activity to stop, and said that he could stop it. The agreement will not stop all criminal activity. We are politicians, not police officers.

Mr Peter Weir: My words were that we need to see an end to criminal activity, and that terrorist organisations that were still involved in such activity should not benefit from Government office. I did not say that I could stop it.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Mr Weir said that all criminal activity must stop now. We went into the negotiations not as criminal justice experts, but as political negotiators, and we are here as politicians. Let the police and politicians get on with their respective jobs.
The criminal activity to which MrWeir and others referred is a fraction of that which occurs in this country. Member after Member spoke about the broken bones of individuals in communities, but we do not often hear about people who are beaten in their homes. When we talk about what constitutes terror, let us include all unacceptable forms of violence, be they domestic or, as MrWeir would call it, but I would not, political.
Mr McCartney’s motion refers to paramilitary organisations, and he spoke about the criminal activity of paramilitary organisations on the ground. Anyone who has worked on community development will know that people are trying to stop individuals — not organisations. I will lend them all the support that I can.
Mark Durkan made an honest speech in which, for the first time in the debate, he highlighted where the problems lay. I should like to request more consultations on those problems. In the negotiations we hit hurdles, but many parties brought their minds to bear on the problems and they were resolved. That consultation has stopped, and we need to restart it. In the absence of the departmental meetings, we must appoint liaison officers.
The fears were expressed in Oslo. MrTrimble was right when he said that Unionism had built a cold house for Nationalism. It was also a hot house for Unionism. Those are both sides’ fears for the future. Will people do again what they have done in the past? Will policemen be legitimate targets? Will we have a recurrence of past violence? Will it be a cold house, that does not respect our legitimate rights, or will people share in Government?
We must try to create the cornerstone that will make this House a place in which everyone’s traditions are respected. Both sides fear that one day they will be an alienated minority. Only the agreement can end that fear, and it is time that we set up a Government.
Three things need to be done. First, we must set up the Departments and get into shadow mode. Secondly, let us set up the implementation bodies, not through force but in co-operation.
The third concerns confidence-building. Our civic society has gone quiet about this political agreement — the trade unions, the business organisations, and the churches as well as the paramilitary organisations. Perhaps that is the formula that we need: that they are all behind our political agreement.
I oppose the motion and the amendments because they ask for a final report. When the report comes to the Chamber it should be in draft form so that we all have an opportunity to debate it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrPresiding Officer. You have said that you take care to look at Hansard and that you compare how we do things with what happens in another place. Perhaps you could look at the way our debates are conducted in future. In no other House would 100%of the Members belonging to a small party be called to speak in any debate. My party is small in the House of Commons — there are two of us — and in some debates we are not allowed to speak at all.
Those Members from the smaller parties who read homilies and attack the rest of us should remember that in another place only one of their Members might be allowed to speak. Why should 100% of one party be able to speak whereas Members from other parties who represent 10 or 20 or 30 times more of the people of Northern Ireland are not being heard? Something needs to be done about that if this is to be a democratic Assembly.

Lord Alderdice: I wish to make two comments in response to your intervention. The arrangements for speaking, and for the conduct of the Presiding Officer, are different from those in another place. Requirements and restrictions have been put upon me by my advisory group, which makes it extremely difficult for me simply to follow what happens there. It is a constant struggle both to follow what happens there and to be equitable and reasonable. I continue to monitor what happens not only in individual debates but also in the context of activity over a period of time.
For example, in respect of the smaller parties to which you refer, there was no intervention at all yesterday that I can recall. I understand your concern, and I do not profess to get it right every time. I am very much in the hands of the Whips, and will continue to do my best, though imperfectly. Like all other Members, I hope to learn from experience.
In other places it is traditional to speak through the Chair. This is not to glorify the position of the Chair, much less its incumbent, but to ensure that Members do not, by referring directly to each other, get into an unhelpful to-and-fro. I appeal to Members to observe the proprieties — not, I accept, those in our Initial Standing Orders, which are deeply inadequate — and the traditions of other places. Doing so will facilitate a less inappropriately robust exchange of views.

Mr Sam Foster: As an Ulster Unionist, I seek peace, but not at any price. I seek progress, but not at any price. I seek confidence-building, but that is not going to happen unless there is decommissioning, and for that reason I support MrMcCartney’s motion. I take it that the motion is intended to be constructive rather than contentious, and I am glad that he and the DUP have now joined forces with the Ulster Unionist Party to supporting the decommissioning issue — it is only a few short weeks since his party was making excuses for Sinn Féin/IRA’s not decommissioning.
I decry the rhetoric of Sinn Féin. I am not convinced by it. I think that it is plausible and unctuous. Its deceit is evident, and it is time that it began to prove itself to society instead of vice versa. I am disappointed in the Alliance Party today — I thought it had more spine. Surely it should be supporting us on decommissioning as well. Does it fear what is in the undergrowth? Alliance’s was a weak and pathetic show today, an exercise in playing to the gallery.
I heard MrFord on the radio this morning talking about being constructive. I would like him and everyone else in the Assembly to know that the UUP has always been constructive for the Province, throughout the years of its existence. We have never tried to bomb the Province out of existence, nor have we tried to make it unworkable — we have no apologies to make to anyone. We lead and hope that others are beginning to follow.
The UUP will keep its promises and its part of the bargain in the agreement. We will not be rushed into doing things that are not right — we are just as entitled to negotiate as others. In my opinion, others are stretching the agreement to the full — they are seeking extras. Everything that is talked about has to have all-Ireland involvement. We are not about to jump into that pool without any thought about it whatsoever.
Getting back to decommissioning, IRA/Sinn Féin and its paramilitary associates have a moral responsibility to decommission because that is an indispensable part of the agreement. That cannot be denied, and it is not a precondition whatsoever. It is a condition of the agreement.
After all these months, every part of the agreement seems to be moving except the decommissioning part. The onus is on Sinn Féin to take this forward. Her Majesty’s Government keep letting prisoners out without any reciprocation whatsoever. I urge that prisoner releases be stopped until decommissioning commences.
There is also a threat along the border, as reported by the Eire authorities. They are sending some of their elite gárda along the border. In spite of that, I am reliably informed that three or four check-points along the Fermanagh-Monaghan border are about to be dismantled. This is a very premature decision. It is leaving people in the Roslea-Newtownbutler part of Fermanagh feeling exposed and at risk.
When we talk about keeping to exclusively peaceful means we cannot forget about the Donegal Celtic/RUC issue. Was that not intimidation? Is that what the agreement envisaged?
After Omagh, and after 30 years of violence and murder, with people’s bodies being picked up in body bags by the RUC, everyone was saying "This must never ever happen again." Everyone should be in this Chamber saying there must be decommissioning before there is any further progress. People are back in their trenches now and beginning to turn a blind eye to the lack of decommissioning. If it does not happen, the Assembly will flounder. In spite of this, the UUP is the only party, until today, that has been pushing for decommissioning.
We are talking about setting up bodies and Departments — that is ridiculous before decommissioning. We are being asked to set up a Government in spite of the fact that we know that, outside in the undergrowth, there are weapons and equipment ready to be used — a-gun-to-the-head attitude. Is that what we are being asked to do? Are we being asked to govern in spite of the fact that there are illegal armies and equipment out there?
MrPresidingOfficer, do you really feel that you could preside over a Government? Would it be credible or incredible? Would it be a credible or incredible Assembly? Would it be dishonest or honest? Would it be deceit or falsehood or a lack of integrity? Are there no morals whatsoever?
Surely we cannot begin to govern until there is decommissioning when peace, I hope, will be absolute. The onus is on Sinn Féin/IRA to do so. It is not on the UUP. We have reached out the hand of friendship; we have been positive; we want to work for the good of all people; but other people have to work as well. I trust that all parties in the Assembly will put pressure on Sinn Féin/IRA. Decommissioning is a must, and nothing will move until that comes about.
I support the motion.

Lord Alderdice: It was a rhetorical point. I can assure you that I will not be presiding over any Government. Debates are as far as my remit allows.

Dr Joe Hendron: As somebody who has attended people with broken bones, broken bodies and broken hearts for many years, I feel that I have some important points to make.
First, I want to address the Member for Lagan Valley, MrRoche, who had the cheek to give my party a lecture on democracy. Let me remind him that the SDLP, with our Leader, JohnHume, at the helm, has been at the forefront of democracy and real politics in this land for over 25years.
Secondly, I listened to the very eloquent and passionate speech by the DUP Member for Mid Ulster, MrMcCrea, a speech that I have heard many times before in the House of Commons. While I can agree with some of the points that he made, I thought there was a certain hypocrisy about the general timbre of what he said. I recall very clearly — and so does a large proportion of the population of this land — his standing on a certain platform.
I hesitate to make this point because a certain other person on that platform was foully murdered after that. At the time the Member said that his actions were in support of the right of that person to speak, that it was to do with democracy. I say to him that, to many thousands of people in the North of Ireland, he was by his actions giving succour, either wittingly or unwittingly, to the organisation to which that person belonged and which had murdered many people. That incident was not very long ago. Let us have no hypocrisy from MrMcCrea.
Having spent the last 30 years in medical practice in West Belfast, taking in the Nationalist FallsRoad and the Unionist ShankillRoad, and having been a public representative for 25years in the same territory, and elected to conventions, Assemblies, Belfast City Council, the House of Commons and this Assembly, I have some experience in these matters. Though it does not seem so long ago, it was in 1975, in the NorthernIreland Convention just after the fall of the power-sharing Executive, that the UUUC, the combined Unionist parties, led by HarryWest, sat across this Chamber.
I was pleased to see MrWest recently in this building and am glad that he is very well. At that particular time, opposite the UUUC sat the SDLP, the Alliance Party and BrianFaulkner with his small band of Unionists who belonged to the UPNI. The key words on both sides that year were "magnanimity" — everybody talked about it — and "trust". I had never heard anything like it. One would have thought that there was a love affair between the two sides. However, the truth was that nobody trusted anybody.
We have come a long, long way since 1975. We have moved mountains since then, and I salute all the people and politicians in both communities who have brought that change about. As the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and First Minister (Designate) has said many times, people can change. Those previously involved in violence and paramilitarism on both sides — many good people who have made mistakes and have done things that were wrong — have given brilliant leadership.
It was in 1975, in this Chamber, that BillCraig broke away from the UUUC — or, to put it more correctly, was pushed away because he proposed voluntary coalition. The Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was part of that grouping, but at least he was trying to make some progress. The years have passed on since then.
I could go on about the many people I have known in West Belfast, patients and constituents, who have been brutally murdered. Indeed, I still see some of their family members.
With regard to the attacks that have been made on Sinn Féin here. I am not a member of that organisation. I took on its party Leader at four Westminster elections, having taken the seat from him in 1992 and then, after a massive redrawing of the boundaries, he took it back again. I have no problem with that.
We would be wearing blinkers if we were to say that they were separate organisations. I totally agree with that. But there is an element of hypocrisy in the Chamber today. I believe that those people who were elected for Sinn Féin in the North of Ireland are trying to lead the Republican movement down the road of democracy, and that is the important thing about this. We can all scream and shout about things that happened in the past, though my experience of families who have lost loved ones is that the great majority support this agreement and want the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to set up the Executive and the North/South bodies.
In the past we have had Vanguard, Ulster Resistance and the crowds acting like the grand old Duke of York’s men who went up the hill waving hundreds or thousands — I am not sure — of gun licences. Some would say that they were legal. Perhaps they were, but they were winding up the paramilitaries.
Many times in Nationalist West Belfast I heard of other people wearing little red berets. I am not saying that they were directly involved in violence, but by their actions they were winding up the paramilitary organisations. I am tired of hypocrisy
I come again to Sinn Féin and decommissioning. My Colleague MrDurkan, the Member for Foyle, made the point clearly that this is not the responsibility of the First or the Deputy First Ministers (Designate). I am aware of people who have been banished by the IRA; I know some of them and have intervened on their behalf. Almost every week I see families who have been intimidated by the IRA, and I am sure that there are families who have been intimidated by Loyalist paramilitaries. I cannot speak with any authority on that.
Members may ask why I do not support some of the points that have been made on the other side of the House. The answer is, as I have just said, that I actually trust the people from Sinn Féin who have been elected here — they do have a mandate and politically it is not in their interest for somebody to go out and smash somebody’s knees.
In 1975 there was much talk about trust. We have moved a long way since then and there should be less talk about decommissioning now and more action. As MrMallon said this morning,
"In politics you do not stand still; you either move backward or you move forward."
Mr McCartney, the Member for North Down, who moved the motion — and I do not mean this in any condescending way — spoke with great integrity. I believe that he is an honourable man. He speaks with great clarity and gives much thought to what he is going to say. He makes his point with clinical precision but politics is the art of the possible, and this is not a court of law. You cannot take the situation as it is and find a perfect solution; it is not like putting all the little bits of a puzzle together. I do not mean this in any condescending way. I accept the sincerity of the points that he makes, but if we follow the logic of what he and some of his Colleagues are saying, we are not going to get any agreement.
The people who are giving leadership in both communities to organisations that have been involved in murder should be supported, and that, I believe, is the will of the people of the North of Ireland.
My speaking time may be running out, but the days are running out as well. People on the Falls Road and on the Shankill Road — and both communities are represented here — are calling for this agreement to be implemented and for the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) to form the Executive. They also want the North/South Council to be formed along with the other bodies associated with it.

Mr Peter Robinson: I fear that when a word is used as often as "decommissioning" is, people forget what it means. The NorthernIreland newspapers have been trying to remind us what it means. On 31October1998 the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ listed the arms and explosives still hidden.
Under the Republican catalogue it says that they have: 2,658 kg of the Czech-made plastic explosive Semtex; 1,204 detonators (not 1,203 or 1,205); 588AKM assault rifles; 395 other rifles; 40 sub-machine guns; 29 GPMG machine guns; 25 heavy weapons; 1·5 million rounds of ammunition (one for everyone in the Province); seven Russian-made flame throwers; 9 Sam 7b ground-to-air missiles; 11RPG 7 launchers; 46 RPG missiles; and 2 Barrett Light Fifty rifles. That is just the IRA’s catalogue of weaponry — a substantial hoard. It is no recipe for peace. These are not the resources that one would expect a "peaceful and democratic" organisation to have.
Some say "Give away 95% of it." Five per cent of that list would be sufficient to carry on a campaign of some significance, and they could replenish whatever stocks were given up. The reality is that those who wish to follow "exclusively democratic and peaceful means" do not need guns and explosives to make their case.
In practice, these weapons end up being used for criminal purposes, as happened in South Africa. Their removal also takes away a threat which gives Sinn Féin/IRA an advantage in bargaining. They do not give up their weapons because they provide them with an edge that they can take into negotiations. They are saying "If you do not give in to us then we will be out on the streets using these weapons."
The key issue is one of trust. The joint declaration stated the rules for entry to the political and democratic process: there had to be a permanent end to violence; parties had to be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. The refusal of Sinn Féin/IRA to offer the word "permanent" suggested to the Unionist community that their organisation had not yet left violence behind and that they intended, if they did not get things their own way in the proceedings that would follow, to use the weapons again to further press the people of NorthernIreland.
I opposed the agreement because decommissioning was not required. The participants simply have to use their influence, such as they have, to try and bring about decommissioning. Not only was there no requirement for decommissioning; there was to be no sanction if it did not take place. It is wrong, therefore, for the Women’s Coalition to suggest that if, in two years time, the guns have not been handed over, the whole edifice collapses. The agreement does not say that. There is a requirement in any society for those who are legitimate, constitutional, peaceful and democratic to give up any weapons they may have at their disposal.
The clearest parallel in the agreement to decommissioning is that of the release of prisoners. Both are within a two-year time frame, and the legislation on sentences links decommissioning with the release of prisoners. It indicates that the Secretary of State has the power, if parties have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, to take them off the list. One reason for doing so is if they are not co-operating fully in the decommissioning scheme. Sinn Féin/IRA are not doing that: therefore the release of their prisoners should not continue.
There has been much talk about the 71% of people who voted for the agreement. The Democratic Unionist Party has been asked what it is doing in the Assembly as it opposes the agreement. We are in the Assembly because we have been given a mandate. As democrats, we recognise the fact that 71% of the people supported the agreement. They voted for promises that were made by the Prime Minister and the First Minister (Designate) in the referendum campaign.
It was clear, during that campaign, that the overwhelming majority of the Unionist community intended to oppose the agreement. The opinion polls that were regularly obtained by the Northern Ireland Office showed that. Focus groups were set up to find out why the Unionist community intended to vote in that way.
The Prime Minister put all his team into Northern Ireland. Presidents, Prime Ministers, pop stars, party leaders and business leaders were wheeled into the Province to try to change the views of the people of Northern Ireland. It did not work. The Prime Minister had to give pledges interpreting the agreement and showing what it would mean to the people of NorthernIreland. In the House of Commons, MrHague said to the Prime Minister
"May I welcome what the Prime Minister has said in the past about the need for decommissioning to take place before Sinn Féin members can serve as Ministers in the Assembly? … Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"
Hansard does not record exactly what the Prime Minister said in response. I raised this with the Speaker of the House of Commons on a point of order. The Editor of Debates in the House of Commons wrote to the Speaker as follows:
"I can confirm that certain words were deleted. That deletion was carried out by us.
The Prime Minister’s exact words were ‘What is essential is that any agreement must be signed up to in full, as we said, and the answer to his question is yes of course it is the case that, both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and in respect of the early release of prisoners, the only organisations that qualify for that are organisations that have given up violence and given it up for good.’ "
The Prime Minister came to NorthernIreland to campaign. On 14 May he said
"People need to know that if they are sitting down in the room of the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly with other people then they are not sitting there with the guns under the table, outside the door and all the rest of it. That can’t happen and we must make it absolutely clear that that can’t happen."
During that campaign the Prime Minister signed an advertisement containing five commitments to the people of NorthernIreland, two of which are relevant to this issue:
"Those who use or threaten to use violence must be excluded from the government of Northern Ireland, and prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good."
His most telling comment appeared in the Belfast ‘News Letter’ and, I believe, in ‘The Irish News’ on Friday 22 May — the day of the referendum itself:
"I have spent a great deal of the time talking to people about their concerns, and I believe the fundamental concern is this; how can people be sure that the present cease-fires are not merely tactical and that the terrorists will not reap the benefits of the Agreement, while retaining the possibility of a return to violence?
The Agreement itself is specifically designed to prevent this happening — and I have made clear in the pledge I gave on Wednesday that I will make the Agreement stick. There can be no accelerated prisoner releases unless the organisations and individuals concerned have clearly given up violence for good — and there is no amnesty in any event. Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn’t just mean decommissioning but all bombings, killings, beatings and an end to targeting, recruitment and all the structures of terrorism."
The Prime Minister identified decommissioning and dismantling as the requirements for entry into government, and before the release of prisoners would take place.
I hope that every Unionist and every democrat in the House will support the motion in the name of MrMcCartney. There can be no place in the Government of Northern Ireland for those who still leave themselves the option of going back to violence if they do not get their way within the Cabinet. Let all Members declare very clearly to Sinn Féin/IRA that the guns must be handed over or there will be no room for them in an Executive.

Mr Robert McCartney: This has been an interesting and illuminating debate, not only for what has been said but also for what has not been said.
The contributions of the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate) can only be described as an exchange between Basil Fawlty and Manuel — do not mention decommissioning.
There was a total absence of any reference to the decommissioning issue at all, and some other Members, notably MrFarren and to some extent MrDurkan, decided that they would take on the mantle of not mentioning decommissioning, though otherwise they made very interesting and worthwhile contributions. In winding up I would like to respond to as many contributions as possible, and it may be necessary to group some of them.
First, I want to deal with the contributions of the First Minister, MrMcGimpsey and MrFoster, who seem to be under the delusion that there is some inconsistency between my previous view and my support for this motion. There is no inconsistency, as I will explain.
I have always said that the agreement did not, expressly or by implication, put any obligation upon any of the parties actually to decommission. Indeed, it is quite clear that paragraph 3 of the decommissioning section only requires parties to use such influence as they may have upon those who possess weapons to decommission within two years. But, if they do not decommission, it will be virtually impossible to prove that those who have influence actually used it.
I have always held and advocated the view that is central both to my opening speech and to the motion that no agreement, no Government and no mandate can supersede or set aside the fundamental requirements of the democratic procedure itself. A person simply cannot be a democrat, possess weapons and say that if the democratic process fails to give him what he wants, he will carry out violence against those who deny him. That is a fundamental principle of democracy, whether it is in the agreement or not.
My opposition to the agreement is that this fundamental democratic requirement was never explicitly spelt out and that, by that failure, Sinn Féin was afforded some legalistic and literal opportunity to say that it was not required to decommission. For the present, I am delighted that all the pro-Union parties feel that they can, whatever the various routes they have taken to arrive at the conclusion, support this motion.

Mr Sam Foster: Will the Member give way?

Mr Robert McCartney: I will not.
I make no mention of the Alliance Party because I have difficulty in discerning where it is, but that is a problem which even MrNesbitt has difficulty in getting his mind round.
Let me move on to some of Sinn Féin’s contributions. I am delighted at this seasonal and festive time to note that the works of Hans Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm have been added to the "green book". We have listened to fairy tales about the absence of any connection between Sinn Féin and the IRA. These fairy tales extend to the PUP too.
I assume that the tooth fairy and other mythological creatures are operating in vast numbers in West and East Belfast, and that it is they who are really the villains whom the police should be asking about the broken bones, the murders, the drug peddling, the creaming off of a percentage from drug dealers, the extortion, the racketeering, all the oppression, the intimidation and the enforced exiles.
MrErvine talked about people having a pension — I think he meant "penchant" — for creating bridges. It is obvious that he saw himself in the role of bridge builder. But what bridges are being built and of what are the materials that those organisations, the PUP and Sinn Féin are using? They are murder, mayhem and mutilation. These people talk as if they have discovered the wheel of ecumenism as if they are at the forefront.
To those who see me as some sort of wrecker I can say that I have never murdered, maimed or made any sectarian comments. I have absolutely no baggage of a sectarian nature, nor has my party. Representatives like MrsdeBrún and MrMartinMcGuinness say that people like me are opposed to the equality agenda or to fairness, or that we are the sort of people who "would not have a Fenian about the place". I believe that by "Fenians" (a very dismissive term) MrMcGuinness means Roman Catholics. Well, I have news for him. I have full cousins who are Catholic; my son is married to a Catholic; I have been in almost every Catholic church in Belfast and many in Rome. I believe passionately in the reformed faith, but I am so confident in that faith that I have no difficulty in exposing it to the faith of others. I have been employed by the Catholic Church as a professional barrister, I have been employed by Catholics, and I have employed Catholics.
I have no problems of any kind with Catholics, Nationalists or Fenians, but I do have an enormous problem with gunmen, thugs and villains who use violence for the purpose of achieving any aim, whether it be alleged social equality or some other form of equality. I have no desire to enforce my views upon anyone, but I will not be subjected to violence or to the threat of violence.
I hear some of these reformed criminals speaking, yet they are the sort of people who supported Loyalist gangs who went in with machine guns and sprayed teagues and Catholics.
These are the people whose inmates had murals on the walls of the Maze saying "Yabba Yabba Do, any teague will do." These are the people who say that democrats — people who believe in the rule of law and in sharing but who oppose this agreement politically and democratically — cannot be good unless they have previously been vile. A Member cannot be good unless he has a record of destruction, murder and mayhem. I am delighted that the UUP, DUP, UKUP and, I sincerely hope, members of the SDLP do not share such views. The SDLP Leader once said that there could be no discussion with guns outside the door, or on or under the table. I respect that view and I agree with it.
I have already quoted the Foreign Minister of the Republic, who said that there could be no question of gunmen looking at the democratic process, not liking what it has to offer, and going back to what they do best. JohnBruton, who at the time of the Downing Street declaration was the Fine Gael Opposition Leader, said that the joint declaration meant that guns had to be handed in now. "Now" is a short word, but it has a clear meaning. It means immediately, forthwith, at once, without delay. There is no equivocation about its meaning now. That was the basis on which all Unionists and all democrats were led to believe that this process was founded. That was the direction that we were all to take.
Why is there an absence of trust and confidence in the pro-Union community? Because at every stage of the process those who were asked to give trust were the pro-Union community. According to paragraph 34 of the Mitchell Report, they were asked to believe during the negotiations that there would be parallel advancement of decommissioning and political negotiation. I did not agree with that. I agreed with Churchill’s comment about negotiating and compromising with Fascists. He asked where was the point of compromise between the fireman and the arsonist.
No guns or explosives were being used by the parties represented in the main line pro-Union community. There were no guns in the SDLP, but there were guns in the possession of Sinn Féin and the UVF — fronted by the PUP. I again return to the political ecumenism of Assemblyman Ervine. His party said that even if Sinn Féin were to decommission, the UVF would not. That helpful and charitable statement was made when, perhaps, there were greater prospects of decommissioning than at present.
I was honoured that JoeHendron had sufficient confidence to retain me as his leading counsel when there was a petition to unseat him. I reveal no secrets that were not declared in open court. Evidence was given, not about guns, but about the behaviour of Sinn Féin as democrats during an election. The SDLP election agent had to be moved about from house to house during the election campaign for his own safety. If I am wrong I will give way to JoeHendron. The windows of the SDLP offices were covered with human and animal faeces.
SDLP workers were subjected to all sorts of vile and physical abuse, to threats and intimidation. This was not going on against pro-Union candidates, this was the dirtiest kind of internecine political warfare against a democratic party.
I, for my part, will work with Nationalists and will endeavour to understand and meet their needs. As Nationalists their aspirations are different from mine, but I will share with them — I have no problem about that. I will go along with all their equality arguments, provided that they are based on justice and proportionality. But, in return, I ask them to throw off the yoke of their pan-Nationalism which binds them to a collection of people who demonstrate all the attributes of Fascism.
I beg them, I implore them, to put democracy above party politics and lend their support to this motion.

Lord Alderdice: Under Initial Standing Order 12(1) the decision of the Assembly on the motion and the amendments will be taken on simple-majority basis. Let me remind the Assembly of what I said at the beginning of the debate. If the first amendment is carried, it will supersede the substantive motion and no further vote will be necessary. The same applies to a second amendment. If the third amendment is carried, the words will be added to the motion, and a vote will be taken on the amended version.
I also indicated that because the Standing Orders do not permit a closing speech in respect of amendments, I would formally ask the mover of each amendment if he still wanted it moved.
Amendment 1: moved or not moved?

Mr Sean Neeson: Moved.
Question put: 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 5; Noes 74.
AYES
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, KieranMcCarthy, Sean Neeson.
NOES
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, GregoryCampbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, DuncanShipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Bairbre deBrun, Nigel Dodds, Pat Doherty, Boyd Douglas, RegEmpey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, OliverGibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alex Maskey, RobertMcCartney, David McClarty, WilliamMcCrea, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Martin McGuinness, GerryMcHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Jane Morrice, Maurice Morrow, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Dara O’Hagan, Ian R K Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, IrisRobinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, PeterRobinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, JimShannon, John Taylor, David Trimble, DenisWatson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, CedricWilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.

Lord Alderdice: Amendment2: moved or not moved?

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Moved.
Question put:
The Assembly proceeded to a division.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The doors are locked. In any other place the doors remain open until the voting begins.

Lord Alderdice: For the last vote I asked that the doors be closed on the expiry of the three minutes. I did not ask that they be closed at this point for this vote.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 20; Noes 59.
AYES
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, Bairbre de Brun, Pat Doherty, David Ford, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.
NOES
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian R K Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, John Taylor, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.

Lord Alderdice: Amendment 3: moved or not moved?

Mr Sean Neeson: Moved.
Question 
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
Noting that
a. no proposals under paragraph 16 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement have yet been made,
b. actions set out in paragraph 8 of strand two of the Belfast Agreement have not been achieved,
c. any party inextricably linked with a paramilitary organisation retaining arms cannot give a total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic means of resolving differences on political issues or oppose the use or threat of force by others for such purposes,
this Assembly calls upon the First Minister Designate and Deputy First Minister Designate to lay a report on these matters before the House within 14days.
Motion made:
That this Assembly do now adjourn. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrPresiding Officer. I believe that you said you did not think that anyone from the Women’s Coalition had taken part in the debate yesterday. In fact, MsMcWilliams did speak yesterday.

Lord Alderdice: I accept your correction and welcome it, as I always do when you are right and I am wrong, which happens from time to time.

Science and Technology (Business)

Mr David McClarty: On 13 May 1998 the Chancellor, MrGordonBrown, said
"Northern Ireland needs more small businesses, but it also needs higher value-added businesses with potential to grow into the drivers of Northern Ireland’s future. That is why we are establishing an enterprise excellence programme. It will provide training, advice and access to finance to help today’s senior managers and research academics to become tomorrow’s entrepreneurs."
His comments and subsequent announcements from the Government make it clear that science-and technologybased companies could be the means by which Northern Ireland might excel in the future.
The potential for the growth of science- and technology-based companies has been described as being equivalent to the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Those regions which are able to offer a market advantage and are willing to bring about the change necessary to embrace new products and innovative thinking, even though lead times will be longer, and expenditure on research and development will be higher, will be the affluent areas of the future.
Science or research and enterprise parks are widely accepted as providing a focus for knowledge — intensive development through research network groups and start-up or spin-off companies and an environment that is conducive to it. The relationship between the knowledge factories and other relevant economic actors is essential for an efficient process of knowledge transfer.
Existing technology and incubator programmes, both in Europe and the United States, indicate that the presence of certain characteristics and features in a region are vital to the success of this type of initiative. These success factors include proximity to a major university with a critical mass of high technology expertise and research and development activity; a business climate that encourages and supports innovation and entrepreneurship; a well educated and skilled workforce and a source of incubator clients; access to appropriate training and specialist services; and availability of seed and venture capital and appropriate support from public-sector agencies.
Experience in other regions which have embarked on a similar road in terms of science- and technology-based industry suggests that success is dependent on the ability of the university to promote its areas of excellence into the private sector and, at the same time, continue to nurture the embryo ideas into commercialisation. This approach raises many issues concerning ownership of the product, finding the right mix of entrepreneurs and scientists, the development of patents and licences and market testing and commercialisation.
The successful development of science and technology parks in areas such as Pittsburgh, Boston and Horsholm in Denmark has not taken place in a random manner. Home-grown science- and technology-based companies have been nurtured in incubator units within the universities for many years before reaching maturity. Their potential to transform depressed areas ravaged by industrial decline is evident in the success of these regions, both in terms of low unemployment and the high quality of life reflected in the above-average salaries commanded by employees in these fields of excellence.
To capitalise on the research strengths and to maximise the benefit for our local economy, an infrastructure will have to be developed that stimulates and sustains the growth of spin-out companies after they leave a university campus incubator.
The inclusion of funding for science park development as part of the Chancellor’s recent innovation funding package for Northern Ireland is therefore a very welcome development that could help meet this objective. It will provide an opportunity for Northern Ireland to capitalise on the excellent research and development programmes already established at its universities — most notably in Belfast and Coleraine.
The Coleraine campus, for example, is widely recognised for its outstanding work in the development of health and life technologies, based on its biomedical science, which has attracted top rating among all UK universities. This clearly gives Coleraine the pillars on which a successful biotechnology science park could be established. Similarly, other campuses in Northern Ireland offer potential for sector-specific excellence which will bring benefit to the whole Province.
It is important for Northern Ireland to grasp the concept of science parks and distinguish them from industrial parks. The future for science- and technology-based industry will revolutionise the modern world, and there are the opportunities in our present university system to capitalise on these dynamic developments.
The commitment of the Assembly to the process and acceptance that we are working towards the long-term prosperity of the Province by stimulating a new and dynamic industry sector can be of use only if the areas of excellence where this research exists are used as the foundations.

Human Rights (Legislation)

Mr Alex Attwood: It is important that the Assembly acknowledge that last Thursday was the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it is important for two reasons.
First, the Universal Declaration informed the notion of protection rights, which is central to the Good Friday Agreement that gave birth to this Chamber. Secondly, while not diminishing the conflict in our community, we are part of the international community where conflict has affected more people in more ways over more time.
While the Universal Declaration expresses our world’s best hopes and achievements, it does so in the context of our worst fears and practices. The evidence confirms this. Last year there were extrajudicial executions in 69 countries, prisoners of conscience in 94 countries and torture in 124countries. Thirteen million people were refugees, and 300,000 under the age of 18 were child soldiers.
However, experience communicates better than these facts and figures. This week last year, BairbredeBrún, David Ervine, Robert Coulter, Davy Adams, myself and others were in Soweto, outside Johannesburg. All of us can now conjure up images of Soweto informed by countless media reports of defiance, dignity and death, but nothing can prepare you for the experience of Soweto.
Amid the noise of up to 5million people, a silence fell among us. Nothing needed to be said, faced as we were with the rights issues of Sowetans — inadequate housing, sanitation and water, corrugated iron homes, standpipes and mobile lavatories at best. We saw extreme poverty, but far from extreme powerlessness. The issues are similar to the issues here, but far more intense.
What relevance can our conflict and our rights issues have to Soweto? I will return to that question later.
More locally, issues of rights have been central to and representative of our conflict. The right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom from discrimination and freedom of assembly and procession are all issues that have been part of our political conflict and the culture of our political communities.
Often, when some have demanded rights, others have seen in those demands an attempt to deny their rights. People have felt that the ownership of rights has been more the possession of one community or the other rather than a common possession. The agreement of Good Friday offers a radical and refreshing perspective on how rights can be claimed by all for all.
The agreement properly places the present and future protection of rights in the context of our recent past. The agreement says that we must never forget those who have died or been injured or their families. We can best honour them through a fresh start in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation and to the protection and vindication of the rights of all.
As citizens, it must be acknowledged that this is a hard perspective for us to accept and that there will be some who may come to accept it slowly, if at all. We here are not just citizens; we have a wider public duty, and to fulfil it we can join together on the issue of rights.
Speaking in Belfast 10 days ago the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, MaryRobinson, touched on this theme and talked about how those who congregate around issues of human rights are enriched by what she called "a drama of discovery". She talked of how the marginalised understand more than victimhood, legal experts more than the law, and trade unionists more than jobs.
This should also be the case in the political community. But vigilance and vigour will be required as the rights and requirements of the agreement are translated into policy and practice.
First, the words of T E Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, should be regarded as a call for vigilance:
"When we had achieved and the new world dawned, the old men came out again and remade the world in the likeness of the former world they knew. They thanked us kindly and made their peace."
The imprint of the old men in the North’s bureaucracy could be seen in the draft Settlement Bill, where some with influence and input frustrated the intent and content of the Good Friday Agreement. An external community lobby with internal political pressure reclaimed the agreement, but the need for vigilance persists.
The specification for the new post of Chief Commissioner in the Human Rights Commission is a case in point. As the only full-time Commissioner, this person will lead the consultation on a new Bill of Rights; he or she will promote awareness of rights, bring court proceedings and much more besides. Yet the Government’s job specification relegates a knowledge of human rights to being merely "desirable" and promotes management and bureaucratic skills with an apparent weighting towards a manager and a bureaucrat — weighting towards a civil servant as Chief Human Rights Commissioner. That is not the way to proceed. The UN Commissioner recently said that any human rights commission
"composed of individuals committed to and with a strong record in the struggle for human rights is a prerequisite for the protection of the rights of all."
Vigilance is required.
Secondly, there is the question of funding for the newly merged Equality Commission — a merger which the Government say is not cost-driven. There are at least two tests of their assertion. In Britain the Government have given differential funding to the Disability Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission — £1million and £6 million — to reflect the emphasis on disability rights, compared to gender rights.
Will they accept the same principle in respect of the merged Equality Commission here? Given the increased functions of the fair employment branch of the new Equality Commission, particularly the new monitoring of public authorities aspect, will they match new funding with the new powers? This Government — and Minister PaulMurphy in particular — have responded to the human-rights lobby in the past; it is time they did so again.
Thirdly, vigour is also required to ensure that the Human Rights Commission’s consultation on a future Bill of Rights for the North enjoys a full and free-standing budget and that the Commission does not have to borrow from its annual budget to fund a broad public debate on the content of the Bill. It is crucial that as a Bill of Rights is an essential building block in the creation of a culture of human rights, the Commission’s consultation is broad-based, local and international and involves other jurisdictions and agencies with specialist insight and information.
Fourthly, given that the Government failed to honour the Paris principles and the powers of domestic human rights institutions, particularly on powers of investigation, the Assembly should follow the example of the British Government which has agreed to co-operate with any human-rights-commission enquiry or investigation. This would be symbolic as a substantial demonstration of our conviction and commitment to the emerging new order.
Last week the First Minister (Designate) said that he
"had serious reservations about the merits of using any conflict as a model for the study, never mind the solution, of other conflicts".
Perhaps, on one issue at least, MrTrimble will reconsider. Whatever differences there are between people in conflict, they all share the issue of rights. As a late Queen’s University academic, FrankWright, said,
"In national conflicts, law, order and justice are not issues that happen to arise from other causes. National conflicts, once they are fully developed, revolve around those issues".
Without rights there is no protection against summary detention or trial. Without equality there is no guarantee against discrimination or disadvantage. Different conflicts have common experiences, and with those common experiences come common solutions.
Our agreement to resolve our conflict moves right away from the margins and into the mainstream. That is part of its uniqueness. It is that part which is most accessible and understood internationally, and by peoples in conflict everywhere. As MaryRobinson said,
"That is why the world is interested in our agreement — why the world observes us."
In working out and living through the purpose, potential and promotion-of-rights protection in our agreement in order to end the conflict, we might inform and inspire others to work out and live through their conflicts. That is how our experience is relevant for the people of Soweto. We have a duty to succeed.

Roads (East Antrim)

Mr Roy Beggs: I wish to bring to the attention of the Assembly the need for improved transportation links in east Antrim. There are urgent pressures for improving the main Larne to Belfast road, the A8, the main Carrickfergus to Belfast Road, the A2, the Larne-Carrickfergus-Belfast rail-link and the port of Larne.
The port of Larne has been designated as a major gateway to Northern Ireland in the "Shaping our Future" document. Larne-Cairnryan is the shortest sea crossing between Northern Ireland and Scotland, and is one of the busiest roll-on, roll-off ferry terminals in the United Kingdom. It also provides a container service to other mainland ports. It provides a highly efficient and frequent service, and is an essential umbilical cord for many of our manufacturing companies and their English, Scottish, Welsh and European customers.
The port of Larne presently receives only 50%grant aid. The trust ports such as Belfast and Londonderry receive grants of up to 75%. There must be a level playing field for fair competition to take place.
The main Larne-Belfast road is an essential part of the Dublin-Belfast-Glasgow/Carlisle trans-European network. There are several accident blackspots on that road — the Millbrook and Ballyloran junctions —which are costing lives on this key transportation route. Many houses have been built on the west side of the dual carriageway, and commuters find it difficult to cross because of the high levels of road traffic. The high-speed nature of accidents on the road has resulted in some fatalities this year. The latest non-fatal accident occurred only 13 days ago. This is an urgent safety problem which must be addressed with or without the help of the Chancellor’s package.
The ‘Shaping our Future’ document shows that 1,750 new houses are planned for Larne by the year 2010. This will add further pressures. The Belfast-Larne road — on the Belfast side of the Kilwaughter junction — becomes a single lane carriageway and offers no opportunities for overtaking. Our vital strategic transport link can be impeded by slow-moving vehicles on this single-lane trunk road.
Urgent safety issues need to be addressed at the Ballynure-Templepatrick junction where the road divides. The trans-European network continues to Belfast, and the other road carries traffic to Antrim and Londonderry. New housing developments at Ballynure have added to the pressure at this junction. Major safety improvements are urgently required.
I shall now deal with the Mallusk M2 slip road. The junction fails to carry the main commuter traffic. Two lanes on the M2 merge with two lanes from the Mallusk roundabout, and motorway traffic is frequently brought to a standstill. This causes a severe bottleneck that delays commuters and adds to the distribution costs of our companies. I urge an investigation into the design of that junction to devise a better method of maintaining traffic flow at peak periods.
The lack of improvements to the A2 Belfast-to-Carrickfergus road is exasperating commuters and inhibiting industrial development in the Carrickfergus area. There is a dual carriageway from Carrickfergus town centre to Seapark. There is then single-lane traffic to the University of Ulster at Jordanstown, where there are two lanes of traffic in each direction. This bottleneck adds up to half an hour to journeys between Carrickfergus and Belfast during peak periods. This morning I met an ambulance coming against the traffic flow, and on such occasions, critical time is wasted.
I am dissatisfied, as are other representatives in the area, with the recent ‘Moving Forward’ document — a transport policy statement by the Department of the Environment. No reference was made in the document to the A2 bottleneck at Greenisland. Why should Members care about the A2? Traffic is so heavy on the route that many travel five miles inland to join the Belfast-to-Larne route — joining the trans-European route and adding to the congestion at Mallusk.
In the constituencies of North Antrim, South Antrim, Mid Ulster and even EastLondonderry, the failure to upgrade the A2 is impinging on commuters and hauliers.
The Department of the Environment advised of a traffic movement increase of approximately one million kilometres per year — from 34 million in 1994 to 38 million in 1998. It is predicted that this will lead to gridlock in Belfast in the next five to 10years.
What suggestions to alleviate the problems in my constituency have been made in the ‘Moving Forward’ document? None, I suggest. There is a suggestion of bus lanes, but as there is only one lane on the A2, how could a bus lane be provided?
There is talk of the promotion of rail transport. The Belfast-to-Dublin and the Belfast-to-Bangor lines are being upgraded. Again, East Antrim has not been mentioned in the document. There is a need for the Belfast-Carrickfergus-Larne line to be upgraded. Bus and rail need to be upgraded.
I was pleased to learn that Bangor station is being upgraded, but I must again ask when some money will be spent to upgrade the stations in my constituency and other parts of east Antrim. Only when funding is provided to upgrade the rail service in east Antrim will commuters choose to let the train take the strain. Proper car parking provision must also be provided at stations.
I appreciate the commencement of improvements that are currently being carried out at the Carrick town bus/rail station car park. However, at present this purely involves putting tarmac on the car park and some security work. The station itself needs to be upgraded.
We need a first-class service that can be relied upon to transport my constituents punctually and in comfort to their destinations. Why should other Members be interested in rail upgrading in east Antrim?

Sir Reg Empey: Hear, hear. [Laughter]

Mr Roy Beggs: Well, if commuters do not leave their cars behind —

Mr Ken Robinson: Will the Member give way?

Lord Alderdice: It has been agreed that, as these are maiden speeches, there should be no interventions. That is the convention.

Mr Roy Beggs: If commuters do not leave their cars behind, Belfast, which is the heart of NorthernIreland, will become gridlocked.
Rail transportation is much more environmentally friendly, and I am pleased to hear that the Bleach Green line is to be upgraded. Members from North, South, East and West Belfast will already be aware of the high levels of asthma among young children, and using rail transport can help to reduce airborne pollution levels.
There is also the issue of equality. The existing rail service in East Antrim is not sympathetic to either the elderly or disabled travellers. Access to stations and carriages needs to be upgraded to allow the less fortunate to use public transport.
East Antrim is a vital link in the transportation network of NorthernIreland.
I urge Members to support investment for EastAntrim so that we may have improved safety, increased economic efficiency, an improvement to the environment in the Greater Belfast area and improved access for the disabled.

Child Abuse

Ms Sue Ramsey: There is nothing worse than the failure of society to protect its most vulnerable people, and especially its children.
All too often in recent years each of us — regardless of financial standing, creed or class — has been disturbed and angered by the stories of children who have been abused by their families, trusted friends, neighbours or by those from whom one had a right to expect more — for example, teachers, youth leaders and the clergy.
Each scandal tells a tale of young lives ruined by others, of adults who neglected children or subjected them to emotional, physical or sexual abuse. This presents each of us with a fundamental challenge. It asks us to define what we mean by a "good society". But it is all too easy to point the finger at "dangerous" families, at "dangerous" adults, or at the "monsters" who prey on children.
We are failing the children by the comfortable nature of our outrage. We condemn the families, the paedophiles and the social workers who are all too often damned if they do and damned if they do not. We are failing children by not ensuring that educational services genuinely tap into the potential of each child and by not ensuring that the range of services designed to protect children is doing just that.
Children’s services are in crisis — a silent crisis — and attention will only be brought to that crisis when an incident happens. There will be outrage then, and people will ask "What, how and when?"
The Children Order 1996 was meant to signal a sea change in the way this issue was to be tackled. The so-called 5Ps are the ideas underpinning this Order. They are: the rights of the child are Paramount; Prevention — an injection of resources to try to support children safely in their families and their communities; Partnership — between all those concerned with protecting children; Permanency; and Participation — by children and families in any decision affecting their lives.
Community groups, political parties and childcare professionals alike welcomed this progressive piece of legislation. But for all of its high ideals, it has one Achilles heel, and that is, of course, a lack of resources in funding and personnel.
The Government have shamefully underfunded this legislation, and health boards and trusts have colluded in this. They maintain to be meeting fully their moral and statutory duties under the Children’s Order, while at the same time everyone is concerned that the gross underfunding is putting children and families at greater risk.
I have been speaking of a real and ongoing crisis in children’s services. Like other Members, I was invited to a conference on 30 November which was hosted by the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance. It was called Crisis in Childcare. Those of us who attended were shocked at the scale of the crisis in children’s services. The most extreme examples can be found in residential childcare.
There are cases of children who have been sexually abused sharing bedrooms with older people who have in the past been abusers. In one incident a child who was a victim of sexual abuse was admitted to a children’s home. While there the young person became the victim of an attempted rape. There are also examples of children, who have been removed from their homes because of family breakdowns, sharing accommodation with vulnerable people who have learning disabilities.
Children who are suffering from mental illness are living in residential homes without having been assessed to see if they need specialised care. The level of overcrowding in residential homes is also unacceptable. Children are having to sleep on mattresses on the floor. As the problem continues to grow, staff are being placed under more and more pressure especially when trying to deal with difficult children. Staff also feel helpless and annoyed that they are not consulted about the children being admitted.
Such stories are a damning indictment of a Government which continues to ignore and cover up this problem. Children in residential care are not receiving the service that they deserve, and if the situation is not addressed, the problem will ripple on for generations.
Dr Kevin McCoy, a chief inspector of social services, said after visiting one such residential home that if the home had been run by the voluntary sector he would have closed it. Does this not beg a question? Reports have been written and money has been promised with the aim of giving full expression to the ideals in the Children Order. Planned investment in all areas is needed to make the partnership between statutory, voluntary and community groups a reality. The rights of the child must be paramount.

Equality

Ms Pauline Armitage: "Equality" seems to be the buzz word of the Assembly, and, having sat here for the past two days, I am not sure that there is anything left to say about it. Mr Initial Presiding Officer, given the two full days of debate, I am sure you and the Members will be quite pleased about that. Equality has also been addressed here before during an Adjournment debate. However, it was discussed from a different political background and from the point of view of a different gender. The political background may not be obvious, but I hope the gender is.
Gender is not an issue with me. I have little time for exclusively women’s groups, women in politics, women’s coalitions who cannot make up their mind whether they are political or not and women’s pressure groups. Perhaps the need to create a party exclusively for women indicates a lack of confidence or an inability to integrate in to an existing forum. It also creates inequality. I do not support quotas for women, places for women or — I heard of this recently — boxes for women. Who wants to be a female jack-in-the-box?
There is more to equality than gender equality. It is an issue in sport. People are excluded from sporting activities because of their job and, more recently, because of their religion — a football match involving the Royal Ulster Constabulary was not allowed to be played even though the people behind its cancellation preach about equality to others.
Equality is an issue in the workplace. Last week I read a report suggesting that a minimum of 40% from one section of the community should be guaranteed a job in a particular workforce. It does not matter how this is achieved, just so long as it is achieved — there seems to be a new meaning for the word equality. Equality in the workplace should reflect ability to do the job, the qualifications required for the job, and relevant expertise and knowledge. Nothing else should matter.
When I attend a conference or seminar it makes little difference to me who sits on the panel or who organises the workshop. If the subject matter is explained in simple, straightforward language, and I can drive home feeling more informed, I do not care whether the panel is made up of men, women or monkeys. What matters is that its members know their subject and be able to make things clear.
Will there ever be equality in everyday life? Listening to Members speaking in Irish does not bother me, but I do not know what they are talking about. Is it equality when only 10% of Members know what is being debated and 90% are excluded?
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines equality as "the state of being equal". Perhaps those who shout most about equality practise it least. One cannot and should not demand equality on one hand and seek special treatment on the other.
In Northern Ireland some ordinary people will not allow other ordinary people to walk down the road they want to walk down. So much for equality.
Disabled people have not been entirely forgotten — perhaps just put on the back burner. I hope that more money will be made available to adapt housing to their needs. That process has already started, and I congratulate those who have worked hard to provide a comfortable home life for disabled people. There is much more to do in this area in respect of everyday activities such as getting out and about and going to the shops. There is also a need to attend to the lack of low kerbs and suitable transport. The list is endless. We could all agree on this issue because disability is no respecter of class, creed or colour.
It is almost Christmas, the season of peace and goodwill to all. I look forward to 1999, when there will be equality for all the people who live, work and enjoy life in this part of our United Kingdom.

Mr Denis Haughey: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I have reflected carefully on what I heard earlier. Should not Mr Empey be severely censured for declaring that he has no interest in the A2? That is a disgusting comment, and he should be asked to withdraw it.

Mr Derek Hussey: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It is reprehensible that only the eastern part of the Province should be declared in transport interests here.

Sir Reg Empey: East Antrim: there was a health and safety warning to stay out of it.

Lord Alderdice: Order. Some end-of-term hysteria seems to be creeping in.
The House is adjourned at the call of the Chair.
Adjourned at 6.09 pm.